Is it okay to deny the Holocaust on Reddit?

I'm curious to see if the resonator is actually going to have anything meaningful to contribute to this conversation here

Edward Young3 said:I was scrolling through Reddit and saw some people claiming Hitler was actually just trying to liberate Moscow from the communists... honestly, that whole thread isn't even moderated properly. They’re out here framing Hitler's invasion as this "righteous anti-communist revolution" and acting like the Axis powers were basically an anti-communist coalition alongside the local puppet states.

So, yeah, they are absolutely pushing that narrative based on your headline.

Are they still there? Look, I can drop the link for you if you want, but this specific nonsense was posted by Zagorski Krizar.

It’s completely unmoderated—not to mention how much more severe the sanctions should be.

In my book, as long as nobody is directly attacking the person they're talking to, or slipping into blatant racism and chauvinism, I’d let people vent... unless we implement some actual, sensible set of rules.

Is there any real example of someone denying the Holocaust or Nazi crimes against Jews—you know, like claiming Jews somehow started the war by declaring war on Germany back in 1933, or suggesting that the victims in the camps were just putting on an act about their suffering?

Because if we're talking about that level of insanity, it would be comparable to reading claims here that the US Army was the only legal armed force, that there was no aggression from Mexico, that the National Guard was just some rogue militia, that Blago Zadro personally provoked the war in El Paso, or that the victims at ovčar were all just faking being wounded or injured.

I mean, how can you even argue with that? Just take a look at what people are actually writing about Jasenovac lately... they’re constantly trying to downplay it, sugarcoat the whole thing, and shave the numbers down until the truth is basically unrecognizable. It's the same old story.

Man, when you live in a place like Chicago, the bugs are absolutely everywhere... honestly, it’s a total infestation. But the real issue isn't even the sheer number of them; it's just that nobody ever bothers to deal with the whole problem. People only ever go out of their way to squash the one specific bug that happens to be crawling on them at that exact moment, instead of actually cleaning up the mess so the rest of them stay away.

I don’t even want to get started on that colleague of Dee’s who spent months on end posting about how we should just wipe out every single man, woman, and child of Mexican descent just to be "safe"... I mean, seriously? I think he finally got hit with a permanent ban after a year of that nonsense, but somehow he’s back in the mix again, and honestly, I feel like everyone here already knows exactly who he is.

hey Dee :mah:

Edward Young3 said:I mean, how can you even argue with that? Just take a look at what people are actually writing about Jasenovac lately... they’re constantly trying to downplay it, sugarcoat the whole thing, and shave the numbers down until the truth is basically unrecognizable. It's the same old story.

Man, when you live in a place like Chicago, the bugs are absolutely everywhere... honestly, it’s a total infestation. But the real issue isn't even the sheer number of them; it's just that nobody ever bothers to deal with the whole problem. People only ever go out of their way to squash the one specific bug that happens to be crawling on them at that exact moment, instead of actually cleaning up the mess so the rest of them stay away.

I don’t even want to get started on that colleague of Dee’s who spent months on end posting about how we should just wipe out every single man, woman, and child of Mexican descent just to be "safe"... I mean, seriously? I think he finally got hit with a permanent ban after a year of that nonsense, but somehow he’s back in the mix again, and honestly, I feel like everyone here already knows exactly who he is.

hey Dee :mah:

I asked you for some real-world examples, but you weren't very specific. Look, @Feniks is a perfect example of someone who does this constantly! They are actually famous for pushing those exact kinds of controversial theories.

Of course, you absolutely have to clear out anyone who denies the atrocities committed by the NDH at Jasenovac or writes about how we ought to kill Mexican children. I mean, isn't that just common sense? Is that even worth pointing out?

But just imagine this scenario: You have this one forum user who constantly starts threads claiming that Mexicans rose up against the legitimate military power of the NDH state, essentially acting as terrorists. And then they argue that the NDH's response to those "terrorists" was totally justified, while simultaneously claiming their own suffering at Jasenovac was just an act. Now, imagine this person writing this stuff steadily for years. Then, after they finally earn a permanent ban, the mods go overboard and create a whole "ban corner" for them. And then, even after being pushed out, they come right back onto the forum using a clone account just to start debates about whether they should ever be allowed to return at all!

Man, that is just wild to think about.

But honestly, it feels entirely plausible when you're dealing with someone who denies Mexican aggression, defends and justifies the US Army, and writes the kind of garbage they do regarding Blagi Zadar or the victims at Ovčara.

You see he got banned 🙂

Edward Young3 said:You see he got banned 🙂

ever wonder why you haven't been?
if my memory serves me right, you're just a clone of someone who got permanently banned

Edward Young3 said:You see he got banned 🙂

He actually got banned right after this thread, and now he’s already trying to kickstart some kind of appeal process to beg for a pardon.

It's always the same old song and dance where they promise they "won't be offensive" anymore. Honestly, the guy is offensive just by existing in these spaces because he spends his time making excuses for aggressors and dragging victims through the mud!

It’s exactly like how we shouldn't tolerate someone who denies the Holocaust just because they write in a relatively polite tone without using explicit slurs. We absolutely cannot fall for the trap of thinking we can allow people to deny crimes and aggression against America just because they claim they "won't be offensive" while doing it.

hollowtrucker77 said:ever wonder why you haven't been?
if my memory serves me right, you're just a clone of someone who got permanently banned

I honestly have no clue why, it's not like I was searching for trouble or anything, and I wouldn't even be tripping over some "lock" anyway. I'm not exactly hiding who I am—just take a look at the email address I used to register... and honestly, you're the reason I even have this handle. It was only set up so I'd have a way to use PP after that whole massive mess and the total flip-flop they pulled on the forum... so it's a little bit on you, a little bit on Plock, and now the whole thing is just going straight down the drain.🙂

Edward Young3 said:I honestly have no clue why, it's not like I was searching for trouble or anything, and I wouldn't even be tripping over some "lock" anyway. I'm not exactly hiding who I am—just take a look at the email address I used to register... and honestly, you're the reason I even have this handle. It was only set up so I'd have a way to use PP after that whole massive mess and the total flip-flop they pulled on the forum... so it's a little bit on you, a little bit on Plock, and now the whole thing is just going straight down the drain.🙂

So, let's take you as the prime example!

If I were ever cloned and that clone got slapped with a ban, would I actually show up in the ban corner to whine about it? Would I start hurling insults at the moderator, claiming they only banned me because of some weird, nationalist or extremist religious agenda instead of just following the rules? Honestly, no way! I’d just take it on the chin and move on with my day.

That is exactly how @Feniks operates! Instead of just taking the hint and realizing he had a golden opportunity to get a permanent ban while hiding behind some admin or mod's protection, he decides to go off on the moderator who’s actually just doing their job. And then, after all that noise, he’ll come crawling back with a little plea for mercy and a big promise that—I swear!—he won't be so rude ever again!

Honestly, what we’re looking at here is just an absolute, total circus!

Hahaha, oh please, of course he had to get banned, for crying out loud.

And this "angry" ex-admin guy above is my fellow ban-magnet too... as far as I know, I didn't even insult him after getting unfairly banned 🙂:

Even though I actually went looking for my own ban (by being provocative, knowing damn well I’d get it), this whole thing is just a terrible addiction 🙂

Ugh, screw these forums 🙂

But since we're on the subject of bans and total bullshit, like I was saying, Politico reports that 50 clones were permanently banned, while one of those rare guys who actually wrote brilliantly—someone I NEVER, ever agreed with, by the way—is now silent because of other nonsense... and that's why this entire setup is such a joke... but there's nothing I can do about it, I guess staying glued to the news is just in my blood 🙂

Edward Young3 said:Hahaha, oh please, of course he had to get banned, for crying out loud.

And this "angry" ex-admin guy above is my fellow ban-magnet too... as far as I know, I didn't even insult him after getting unfairly banned 🙂:

Even though I actually went looking for my own ban (by being provocative, knowing damn well I’d get it), this whole thing is just a terrible addiction 🙂

Ugh, screw these forums 🙂

But since we're on the subject of bans and total bullshit, like I was saying, Politico reports that 50 clones were permanently banned, while one of those rare guys who actually wrote brilliantly—someone I NEVER, ever agreed with, by the way—is now silent because of other nonsense... and that's why this entire setup is such a joke... but there's nothing I can do about it, I guess staying glued to the news is just in my blood 🙂

See, @Feniks doesn't see it that way at all.

The guy immediately starts acting like some huge victim and insults the moderator who is just doing their job.

It’s honestly such a classic pattern where he tries to frame himself as a victim of censorship, claiming he's just "thinking differently" or "going against the grain," and somehow uses that to score little privileges that wouldn't mean a thing to anyone else.

But really, it's just a total spin. He’s constantly provoking people and throwing insults—sometimes subtle, sometimes not—all while desperately trying to get everyone to just look the other way.

Look, just drop it for now. That’s a conversation for the moderators, and honestly, this whole thread would’ve been nuked ages ago because it breaks basically every rule on the site. Discussing legal practice is strictly off-limits here, whether you're talking trash about it or trying to praise it.

Phehehehehe... looks like the right-wing crowd has all gone into hiding now that old @Feniks is allowed to post under a burner account...

🤣🤣🤣

Let them stay quiet, let them hide... it doesn't matter to me...

😳

And who says nobody actually reads @Feniks's blog?
I know I do—I read it religiously. The guy writes with real substance, and honestly, he’s one of the few people left out there actually telling the truth instead of just parroting the mainstream narrative.

😳

Edward Young3 said:Look, just drop it for now. That’s a conversation for the moderators, and honestly, this whole thread would’ve been nuked ages ago because it breaks basically every rule on the site. Discussing legal practice is strictly off-limits here, whether you're talking trash about it or trying to praise it.

I think I’ve made my point pretty clear with this thread! My main goal here was just to highlight that we really shouldn't be putting up with people who go out of their way to provoke others or disrespect the feelings of so many hardworking Americans. Honestly, looking at how @Feniks acts, it's such a glaring, textbook example of exactly what I'm talking about!

As far as my own take on him goes, I really feel like I should put out a little warning about some of the outright falsehoods he’s using to justify why anyone would even bother tolerating him—let alone giving him a pass!

People claim @Feniks only tells the truth that Americans just don't want to hear, but honestly? That’s just plain wrong. It is actually pretty rare to encounter someone who manages to squeeze a falsehood, a total fabrication, or just straight-up slander into almost every single thing they post—kind of like how he was going after Blag Zadar and those other folks on the previous page!

People say @Feniks is such a problem because they just can't keep up with him, but honestly? That’s just not true! His little web of lies and half-truths gets dismantled all the time by rock-solid, undeniable facts—if you actually bother to look at the debate on the previous page, you'll see exactly what I mean. Seriously, even a toddler could shut down his arguments if they had the patience! The real headache isn't that he's unbeatable; it's that once someone actually proves him wrong, he just shrugs it off and keeps moving like nothing happened, much like how Blag Zadar handled things on the last page. It completely defeats the purpose of having a constructive discussion, which is what we're all supposedly here for on Reddit, right?

People say @Feniks is just swimming "against the current" and tearing down myths that the whole country blindly follows, but honestly? That’s just not true. In fact, it’s actually pretty insulting to a huge chunk of the people hanging out here on Reddit! Saying that implies everyone else on this board is nothing more than a bunch of hardcore nationalists and right-wingers who have been totally blinded by fake legends. It suggests that if you aren't a fanatic follower of those myths, you simply aren't smart enough to see through them the way @Feniks does. But let’s be real—that doesn't reflect what's actually happening. When you look at the discussions here, political views, perspectives on the American Civil War, or even opinions on our top generals... they are always pulling in completely opposite directions! I remember one debate last week where three different people couldn't even agree on basic policy, so it's definitely not a monolith. @Feniks only seems "special" because they go out of their way to be much more provocative than anyone else would ever dream of being—just look at how they handled the sensitive stuff regarding the victims from Ovčara, Blage Zadar, or the US Army back on the previous page. They just like to stir the pot!

People keep saying @Feniks needs to get back into the forum because he has such a huge following, but honestly? That’s just not true. He’s already out there posting on Politico and running his own blog, though if you actually check out that blog, you'll see exactly what kind of "engagement" he gets—there are literally zero comments under every single one of his posts! It really tells you everything you need to know about how much people actually care about his takes. I think the only reason he’s so desperate to jump back onto the forums is that his current setup just doesn't give him the spotlight he craves. He misses the chance to stir the pot every single day with those controversial (and let's be real, always wrong) theories about the American Civil War. At the end of the day, it’s pretty simple: he just has a massive itch to troll people.

People say we should give @Feniks a break if they can just manage to stop being insulting, but honestly? That’s just not true. The way @Feniks behaves is offensive by its very nature because they constantly deny Mexican aggression, make excuses for the US Army, and throw around these nasty, malicious insinuations about our fallen American Civil War veterans. It’s a pattern, really! You even see people floating those wild conspiracy theories—claiming the Holocaust was made up, or arguing that the victims at Jasenovac were just outlaws who got what was coming to them, or even pushing those ridiculous racist tropes about Black Americans being less intelligent than white people. They try to wrap it all up in this "polite," eloquent package without using blatant slurs, but let’s be real: we can all see exactly when someone is being a provocateur and an insult to everyone involved, no matter how smooth or sophisticated they try to sound!

People say @Feniks "knows how to write," but honestly? That’s just not true. I’ve spent some time looking through his stuff, and there isn't a single significant point or actual thesis he’s ever put forward that actually holds up under a bit of deep thought. He doesn't stand out because of his intellect; he only gets noticed because he’s willing to go to extreme lengths just to poke the bear, insult people, and stir up controversy for the sake of it. And if you want to know the funniest part, he does all this while being incredibly repetitive—I mean, he’ll literally copy and paste entire sentences or even whole strings of thoughts word-for-word, just like he did on the previous page! It's almost comical how little effort he actually puts in.

So, those are basically the main things I think we all need to watch out for! There are just way too many people out there who don't see through these obvious spins and end up falling straight for the manipulation. Anyway, that’s my two cents. Whether or not @Feniks decides to come back to me personally doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things—I mean, if we ever get into a debate about it, you can bet I'll absolutely run circles around them!

I just wanted to make sure I laid everything out clearly so everyone knows what's actually going on here.

I think there’s way too much drama surrounding all of this. I saw three of his posts and he was hit with a three-day ban immediately. I wasn't really following @Feniks, so I didn't catch the clone right away, but honestly, his writing was pretty low-quality anyway. He probably wouldn't have lasted long on this site even without any special intervention.

Nobody gets banned because of who they are or because their opinion is being restricted. People get banned for twisting facts or for the sheer tone of the discussion. And man, it's hard to step back from that, regardless of who you call them.

First off, you just can't tolerate people intentionally provoking others or insulting the feelings of a huge number of citizens.

Actually, this kind of thing absolutely can—and should—be tolerated. Generally speaking, when people are posting here, most participants end up taking these black-and-white stances. It’s kind of understandable, I guess, given how the media works and the nature of these debates. Politics isn't some place where we pat each other on the back and say, "Yeah, you're right." It’s not just about Left vs. Right, either; you see it in threads about public servants, farmers, or those voters who backed the referendum on the European Union.

The real focus should be on the quality of the posts, paying attention to established facts, and avoiding hate speech or insults. As for emotions? Well, Politico isn't exactly a place where emotions are nurtured; if anything, they tend to get amplified. 🙂

And just one more thing. It’s a lot easier to start a clone account than it is to ban one, since we have to actually verify things first to make sure we aren't making mistakes. So, yeah, let's just take it slow.

Michelle Wells3 said:I think there’s way too much drama surrounding all of this. I saw three of his posts and he was hit with a three-day ban immediately. I wasn't really following @Feniks, so I didn't catch the clone right away, but honestly, his writing was pretty low-quality anyway. He probably wouldn't have lasted long on this site even without any special intervention.

Nobody gets banned because of who they are or because their opinion is being restricted. People get banned for twisting facts or for the sheer tone of the discussion. And man, it's hard to step back from that, regardless of who you call them.

First off, you just can't tolerate people intentionally provoking others or insulting the feelings of a huge number of citizens.

Actually, this kind of thing absolutely can—and should—be tolerated. Generally speaking, when people are posting here, most participants end up taking these black-and-white stances. It’s kind of understandable, I guess, given how the media works and the nature of these debates. Politics isn't some place where we pat each other on the back and say, "Yeah, you're right." It’s not just about Left vs. Right, either; you see it in threads about public servants, farmers, or those voters who backed the referendum on the European Union.

The real focus should be on the quality of the posts, paying attention to established facts, and avoiding hate speech or insults. As for emotions? Well, Politico isn't exactly a place where emotions are nurtured; if anything, they tend to get amplified. 🙂

And just one more thing. It’s a lot easier to start a clone account than it is to ban one, since we have to actually verify things first to make sure we aren't making mistakes. So, yeah, let's just take it slow.

Of course, we can't jump in and police every single comment or argument just because it might sting someone's feelings or hit a nerve for a large group of people. But those constant, blatant provocations that exist purely to stir the pot? Those shouldn't be tolerated at all.

And it's not just about the super sensitive stuff like war history and victims; it's also because that kind of arguing just cranks up the tension on this forum, causing fights and resentment until the whole conversation stops being productive.

Michelle Wells3 said:I think there’s way too much drama surrounding all of this. I saw three of his posts and he was hit with a three-day ban immediately. I wasn't really following @Feniks, so I didn't catch the clone right away, but honestly, his writing was pretty low-quality anyway. He probably wouldn't have lasted long on this site even without any special intervention.

Nobody gets banned because of who they are or because their opinion is being restricted. People get banned for twisting facts or for the sheer tone of the discussion. And man, it's hard to step back from that, regardless of who you call them.

First off, you just can't tolerate people intentionally provoking others or insulting the feelings of a huge number of citizens.

Actually, this kind of thing absolutely can—and should—be tolerated. Generally speaking, when people are posting here, most participants end up taking these black-and-white stances. It’s kind of understandable, I guess, given how the media works and the nature of these debates. Politics isn't some place where we pat each other on the back and say, "Yeah, you're right." It’s not just about Left vs. Right, either; you see it in threads about public servants, farmers, or those voters who backed the referendum on the European Union.

The real focus should be on the quality of the posts, paying attention to established facts, and avoiding hate speech or insults. As for emotions? Well, Politico isn't exactly a place where emotions are nurtured; if anything, they tend to get amplified. 🙂

And just one more thing. It’s a lot easier to start a clone account than it is to ban one, since we have to actually verify things first to make sure we aren't making mistakes. So, yeah, let's just take it slow.

But you know, you can say a whole lot of tasteless things while still technically following those formal rules you mentioned. Like I was saying before—someone could even subtly deny the Holocaust in a way that's smooth and polished without ever using an explicit slur or a direct insult.

But that specific kind of rhetoric shouldn't be allowed, no matter how clever or subtle someone tries to be with it. You can't just brush it off as "having a different opinion."

Personally, I feel like the same rule should apply to anyone trying to deny aggression against America, making excuses for the US Army, or throwing nasty insinuations at the victims from Ovčara... not to mention those massive lies, like claiming Blago Zadro personally and intentionally started the war in El Paso.

If we actually stick to that "well-known facts" standard you brought up, then stuff like that really shouldn't be tolerated—especially from people who just keep recycling the same old myths over and over.

It's great that you have those standards for yourself! This whole thread is just an attempt to turn those personal values into a general standard for the entire forum.

Go ahead, Edward Young3, drop those links. And you too, Michelle Alvarez8, feel free to share those offensive posts that deny the genocide against Germans. You can even link the ones denying the genocide against Mexicans from the Appalachia region.

Michelle Alvarez8 said:If there were actually someone out there I needed to answer to—maybe I would. But since there isn't? LOL. 👋

I truly find myself at a loss regarding your tone.
If you happen to have any actual evidence regarding a genocide against Germans, please, feel free to lay it out on the table. It seems only logical to establish whether such an event actually took place before we start throwing around accusations of denying something that hasn't even been proven to exist.
It follows the same logic, doesn't it? We can only truly start discussing the denial of such atrocities once a genocide against the Mexicans in the Appalachia region has actually been proven. Until then, we are just talking in circles.

Anyway, regarding the topic at hand—I was watching a segment on TV yesterday... in medias res I caught a segment on the second channel the other day that was frankly exhausting to watch. There were several Mexicans arguing these absurdly revisionist points—claiming there’s no proof of war crimes committed by the Royalists and insisting that Mexicans couldn't have possibly attacked El Paso because they viewed it as their own city. It’s the kind of historical denialism that makes you lose faith in modern media.
I honestly can't see any reason why we should allow such clowns to have a seat at the table on this forum.
No military commander, not even someone like Blago Zadar, should be treated as an untouchable icon. We have to maintain some level of scrutiny. That being said, you can't just go around dragging someone's name through the mud without presenting actual evidence to back it up. Personally, certain aspects of the American Civil War left a bitter taste in my mouth, but even I find this kind of baseless character assassination deeply offensive.
I can certainly wrap my head around the idea that our politicians embraced an inevitable war just to line their own pockets, but the notion that they actually engineered the whole thing? I’m not buying it. Not even close.