Well, at least this is a good example of why echo chambers are bad.

To be fair they can run their sub however they want.

Like the mods on absolutely every other subreddit. Maybe take this to /r/drama ?

I think the original post, where you describe volunteer moderators of a history subreddit as Jackbooted Censoring Overlords , is fairly sad.

If you head on over to r/history yourself, you'll see the sticky their own mods made explaining this update, in which they refer to themselves as jackbooted censoring overlords.

Wow, you're right. That's is sad.

You wrote a couple of hundred words about volunteers on a web forum... But I'll take it lol

Useful idiots are the worst aren’t they?

I love censorship and being told where, how, what, when and why to think too. You like money?

No one is forcing you to subscribe, read or believe the posts on /r/history

Do you like being a victim?

They must protect the status quo, what can you do about it :/

Their "history" is full of holes and built on shaky foundations and as we discover new data their narrative starts falling apart

Historians are soon gonna be making "corrections" to their stories as much as reporters are doing right now in news lol

"corrections" to their stories

This has been happening for 60 years. For example, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum now says : "There is no credible evidence that the gas chamber in Barrack X was used to murder human beings."

I wonder what to think about the hundreds of "eye witnesses" that have been saying otherwise? Did they confuse their imagination with reality ?

Don't even get me started with this.

This is merely a sypmtom of the fact that we are living in the Golden Age of Bullshit.

“Real historical discussion” riiiiight

It's not only the holocaust, remember that. Any criticism against Communism will be met with the same results, because Lenin and Marx are pretty obviously superior over mortals and cannot be criticized.

Yeah, you can run around with a tee-shirt bearing the Soviet hammer and sickle; you cannot however wear one with the Nazi svastika, even though the former represents a regime that killed at least an order of magnitude more people than the latter.

Your not really punished though? Just asked to take your ideas elsewhere. I'd be far more concerned if this was public schools. Much ado about nothing, move on.

The left has gone so far left that theyve circled around to far right morality enforcement...all the things i hated about conservatives, the liberals have become guilty of...racism, blind, black and white morality...ugh

Good OP OB1, thanks.

Another way to put it is ... what kind of researcher is the historian, if his conclusions are pre-determined by criminal law?

Indeed, isn't scientific inquiry revisionism by definition ? Didn't Galileo negate Copernicus? Didn't Einstein negate Ǹewton?

Also note, it is not revisionism or even negationism that is forbidden, agnosticism is too; you cannot "not know", or "reserve your judgement".

Heck, even thought that is mainstream for historians cannot be uttered by non-historians : I present you one among many examples.

This update on the History subreddit seems to be a reaction to a post on the Graham Hancock subreddit. A redditor asked a question about Graham Hancock during an AMA on the History subreddit and was promptly splatted with the ban-hammer.

Equating Hancock and fringe archaeology with Holocaust denial by giving them the same label of 'Historical Negationism' and refusing to even allow an AMA guest to explain why fringe archaeology is fringe instead of being mainstream is ridiculous. It results in historical or archaeological research being dominated by authorities pronouncing some unquestionable truth instead of proper debate.

I wonder how they'd deal with this controversial story of the BBC's documentary about the Rwandan Genocide? Here are a few sources:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/02/bbc-rwanda-documentary-inquiry

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/yaalengi-ngemi/controversy-over-bbcs-rwa_b_6063322.html

https://news.vice.com/article/rwanda-versus-the-bbc-broadcaster-faces-growing-storm-over-documentarys-genocide-denial

And the documentary in question = https://vimeo.com/107867605

What could be posted and/or discussed on that subreddit regarding this piece of historical reality. The moderation team has to be questioned a bit over this rule change.

How Reddit Was Destroyed

Discussion

No questions

Pick one.

They want more memes, circlejerking, and upvoting instead of an actual forum discussion.

This is a total over reaction by r/history. When will people in this country( It seems like a huge problem in this country for whatever reason) learn to stop banning discussion or viewing of material they dont like. Even if it is perceived has doing a trivial amount of good by shutting out holocaust deniers. It totally stifles discussion of theories that may have merit like Graham Hancock and only serves to pique people's interest more .

Especially when it comes to Hancock's theories because scientists have a monetary interests and reputations to protect. Entertaining his theories are dangerous to their whole framework they have concocted.

Hes not even that far out there...he avoids mentioning aliens in most of his writings.

This is why, as a student of history, i've never subscribed to /r/history .

I used to consider this my history sub back in the ol' days...

Everybody has their when they woke up story (if they ever did).

I started waking up in the 90s when I realized Napoleon was the opposite of how I was brainwashed to view him. I was brainwashed to view him as a short fat **shole who wanted to take over the world “just like Hitler”.

Why would the powers that be want to malign a powerful ingenious white guy with the courage to take on all those lying creeps on at once?

If I ever do anything right it’s because I’m trying to honor the memory of someone who I view as not perfect but Heroic.

If you really get into researching Napoleon, he was not a warmonger. The opposition is and has always been itching for war. It took a military general to put fairer laws in place for most of Europe (for a time).

He lost in the end. Now this is our world but at least he fought this infernal feudalism with everything he had!

Then i realized what a dick abraham lincoln was...he was a war criminal who trampled all over the constitution. All our heroes were a lie.

How do historical revisionist sit in with this?

Hell, half the work towards those Confederate statues and re-plaquing the ones up are an example of revision.

Who dictates?

These are people who think the pyramids at Giza were fashioned with stone tools and assembled by slaves with rope.

They simply lack the ability to imagine alternative explanations.

Ob1_kenobi, I cant see your question anymore. People rarely indulge my wish to discuss Napoleon. I’m American. I studied Napoleon in Paris and I was surprised that people were actually hostile about him there. The brainwashing about Napoleon is a huge motivator in what I do. We’ve been indoctrinated to loathe a dominant brilliant white man who had the courage to push the oligarchs BACK. Of course they want to prop up their garbage fake mind controlled “celebrities” and they indoctrinate that strength and heroism is bad and wrong and evil. It’s all backwards.

I got banned for agreeing with another user who said that the mods were abused their power to delete discussions. All I said was “yes.” I got perma banned. I’m an ‘amateur historian’ and have answered posts there in the past but that place has gone to hell.

Illegitimate as decided by who?

Very simple question. Its decided by the winners.

What is there to discuss when you can’t ask questions.