2

I flagged the holocaust-denying post Man who claimed to have escaped Auschwitz admits he lied for years as offensive. The flag was declined, with the message

declined - This is a Politics Q&A site. We should be able to discuss the Holocaust without getting so easily offended.

There's plenty of other sites on the internet which allow people to engage in holocaust denial, but there's no need for this garbage and hate speech on Stack Exchange. We're not an "anything goes" website, and we don't claim to be one. It's one where people post factual questions and get factual answers. It's not for posting absolute nonsense as fact, let alone when it's hate speech.

Related question: Are antisemitic conspiracy theories against policy?

| |
  • 2
    Please explain how exactly that question is a "holocaust-denying post". Does the mere suggestion that some of the holocaust stories may need to be a bit more thoroughly investigated count as "posting absolute nonsense as fact" and "hate speech" in your book? – yannis♦ Jun 27 '16 at 13:30
  • 1
    @Yannis Well, he is questioning the very concept of "Holocaust denial" being a bad thing. – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica Jun 27 '16 at 14:34
  • @SamIam In the comments. However, it was the question that was flagged, not the comments. – yannis♦ Jun 28 '16 at 7:13
  • 1
    @Yannis the comment proved what I suspected about the question. – Andrew Grimm Jun 28 '16 at 8:02
  • Flagging based on suspicions instead of actual evidence can be risky @AndrewGrimm. – yannis♦ Jun 28 '16 at 9:47
  • @Yannis many holocaust deniers try to pretend they're not holocaust deniers. – Andrew Grimm Jun 29 '16 at 12:40
  • @AndrewGrimm This is true, but I don't see how is relevant to this discussion. You flagged a question. Nothing in the question's text justified the flag (at the time I saw it), and I declined it. Your suspicions (which I happened to share to a degree) are irrelevant. – yannis♦ Jun 30 '16 at 8:10
0

At the time you flagged the question, there was nothing in its text that I would count as "holocaust-denying", "hate speech" or "absolute nonsense as fact".

True, it wasn't a stellar question, and I won't deny that it smelt funny. However, the offensive flag carries a certain weight and shouldn't be used without concrete evidence to back it up.

I think your vote to close was enough in this case.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .