Essay talk:Rational Wiki goes into full victim blaming mode

I didn't have a chance to read the article when it was up, but taking a look at the talkpage, it seems to me like you are blowing this a little out of proportion. There are many great ideas on the talkpage about what people thought should be done with that article. As for my post-facto opinion, I do agree that the article should've been given more of a chance before it was deleted. I see nothing there that would've qualified as "off-mission" to me. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Claims that RationalWiki editors are "Nazi sympathetic", "argue Nazi apologetic views" and "went on blaming women in the Soviet Union for the rapes committed against them" look pretty implausible & should be backed up by examples of which comments you are talking about if you want anyone to take your arguments seriously. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The last claim you mention is more indirect, but is nonetheless a component and effect of what people were arguing. I will need to briefly undelete the article in order to get screenshots to use as examples. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 15:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Missed the article and the discussion. But just as a notice, since you talked about serious historians, who established that views differing from theirs were Nazi sympathetic: Serious historians would usually not care, if their research colud be interpreted as Nazi-sympathetic or unsympathetic. If they applied that logic, advances to Holocaust history, like Brownings ordinary men, would not have been published. Historians care about explaining how and why something happened. Th. Bernhard_{Das Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist.} 06:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Not to lessen your point that serious historians are supposed to care about the history and only the history, but take a look at this: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/gaycomp.html

Shortly after the war the topic of the Nazis and their activities was a mine field of fears and biases even among historians, thus you can see how Lautmann makes extensive efforts to justify himself against fears that he knows people will generally have about studies in the topic (though nowadays you read it and you think to yourself "gawd, just get to the point already!"). Nullahnung (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

What exactly was your point with that article? Lautmann mentions the legitimate, although more philosophical question, wheter the Holocaust was unique or not. The externalization of responsibility, which supposedly comes with the Holocausts uniqueness, sounds rather unusual and Lautmann does not give any real reference for it. I found the essay in general a bit lacking, since statistically comparing different camps and their treatment of homosexuals seems problematic to me, as the sample size per camp is rather small. I also don't get your reference "Shortly after the war...". Lautmann wrote this essay somewhere in the 90s, although I did not find any publication date on this platform. And last and least: Lautmann is not a historian but a sociologist. Last but not least: Why do you have a new username Inquisitor?Th. Bernhard_{Das Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist.} 16:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I remembered a bunch of things wrongly. My point was going to be that researchers/historians do care about whether their research could be interpreted as Nazi-sympathetic or unsympathetic. But my example did not really apply, so nevermind. Nullahnung (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)