Agreed. For people that were banned off of Reddit from undue and hypocritically applied censorship, they seem to embrace it wholeheartedly here.
It's also a blatant logical fallacy. Espousing for the truthful telling of history doesn't make one an advocate of the side that the truth casts a better light on. For any other historical topic a historian doesn't have to defend himself as being pro-[anything], for merely telling the truth about it, except for WW2. A historian about the Roman empire doesn't mean he's pro Roman empire and anti anyone else. A historian about the American Revolution doesn't make him pro U.S. and anti-British. Just because I believe in the truth about WW2 doesn't make me a "Nazi" or "stormfag". That argument is ridiculous just on the surface.
Agreed. For people that were banned off of Reddit from undue and hypocritically applied censorship, they seem to embrace it wholeheartedly here.
It's also a blatant logical fallacy. Espousing for the truthful telling of history doesn't make one an advocate of the side that the truth casts a better light on. For any other historical topic a historian doesn't have to defend himself as being pro-[anything], for merely telling the truth about it, except for WW2. A historian about the Roman empire doesn't mean he's pro Roman empire and anti anyone else. A historian about the American Revolution doesn't make him pro U.S. and anti-British. Just because I believe in the truth about WW2 doesn't make me a "Nazi" or "stormfag". That argument is ridiculous just on the surface.