https://youtu.be/CiHUcQG7bH4
Ethan is pointing out real scummy shit, all is right in the world
it takes a scumbag to know a scumbag I guess
I thought this is what he did when his content started to suck tho
I mean I'm he's pointing out assholes so he's not being a bad person but I'm just sayin
Wait so what stage are we in right now. We still hating on Ethan? Or is he kinda back and ok now? Or was he back for like 1 video but he still sucks?
When I read the thread title I assumed it was a video about him, not by him.
Someone tell me who to hate
Personally I had beef because he was getting dull and he was bitching too much about dumb things that he would then both back pedel on, as well as double down at the same time
He's gotten back into his content well enough, so I can't hate on him forever.
To be honest I haven't followed h3h3 at all and all I really know of this dude is him perpetuating some nazi apologist myths about Dresden, so he's a shit in my book.
Can someone explain to me what Ethan did exactly that deserves the whole hate? I'm kind of confused.
honestly no offense but what the actual fuck are you on about
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l65hR94nfqY
Somewhere along the lines in this podcast, not sure the timestamp 'cause frankly I can't be arsed to look through it all, he claims that:
The Allies killed 300.000 civilians in Dresden, not the actual 25.000 (which is still terrible, mind you)
Dresden was a purely non-military target (Which is just downright false)
Dresden-bombings happened after the surrender of Germany as revenge bombings (Absolutely fucking false)
A few more bullshit points I don't recall 'cause it's like six months since I saw it.
Now, all of those are nazi-apologist talking points, common whataboutisms to paint the Allies on a roughly equal footing as far as war crimes go.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"
H3H3 talks before thinking all the time. He's a fucking idiot. But to imply hes spreading neo-nazi talking points on purpose is equally dumb.
Also, is this that hard to believe that he heard this went, "Yeah, doesn't surprise me"
The US has committed a LOT of war crimes.
Also, why would a jew, knowingly spread neo-nazi propaganda?
I'm sure Ethan, what with being Jewish, was trying to excuse the Nazis, and isn't just, y'know, average american levels of ignorant about European history.
I don't mean to imply he's doing it on purpose, but he's clearly fucking doing it, and he then has a good 8 million people (going by that video's view-count) listening to it. If we are generous and say that 9 out of 10 then don't believe his bullshit, that's still 800.000 more people exposed to it to believe in the future.
Essentially, either he willingly spreads alt-right talking-points (unlikely), or he's a fucking idiot who believes them himself and brings them up in random conversation without a moment of thinking he might need to check what he's saying before he influences thousands of fresh, new idiots.
His mic recordings has a very low hum.. Unfortunate.
Ethan's just a phenomenally average dude who thinks running a podcast means he can speak authoritatively about whatever he wants. He's just a clueless podcaster type who started as a random meme. Now he's genuinely playing a small part in the normalization of alt-right and crypto-fascist narratives - a small, small part, sure, but still enough that he should know better. Self-help-addicted pseudo-intellectuals flock to people like Jordan Peterson, who uses his ~psych credentials~ to push transphobia and "east vs. west" bullshit. Joe Rogan's another example - he'll platform some really fucked-up people (like Alex Jones), and basically never questions or challenges their fucked-up beliefs. Hell, Eddie Bravo's a fucking flat-earther. Rogan's easy bait for more clever people to spread hatred. But still - these guys aren't a huge deal - it's who they're platforming and the ideas they're mindlessly spewing that can be troubling.
It's more concerning when you get to the atheist "skeptics" that flock to Sargon or ArmoredSkeptic, who drank their own kool-aid and turned almost full-on race-realist fascists. Or when literally an innocent gaming YouTuber starts spouting "race realism" and claiming that black people are inferior, like JonTron. Ethan's on the phenomenally mild end, but he's still acting like a useful idiot for more clever people to normalize their fucked-up beliefs on impressionable kids who started off watching memes.
There's a very real process of online radicalization and these sorts of YouTubers can offer a really unassuming entry point for a mindset of fear and an ideology of hate that should've been crushed long before Dresden was ever firebombed. It's irresponsible to have a large following and a strong online presence and to make authoritative claims about shit you're completely clueless about. Ethan, and a lot of other online public figures, have a social responsibility to avoid funneling their viewers towards people and ideas that advocate hatred.
Surprised he hadn't made video on fuckjerry sooner
he has been a menace for good while
Reading this just fills me with dread. Sometimes I think the internet was a mistake
I used to think it was all bullshit until I realized it's just a big web. You might start with H3H3, pretty funny, cool dude, oh hes collabed with JonTron... and then you get into JonTron for a while and hear JonTron did this weird debate better check it out... and then instantly you are hit with neo nazi talking points. But it's JonTron, that cool guy I've watched funny videos from, he can't be so bad or wrong, right? So you check their twitter. Oh JonTron follows Notch, haven't heard that name in a while! Wonder what hes saying recently........oh god oh fuck.
Pewdiepie is so guilty of this but there's this mental block that so many people have where they can't see it. There's nothing wrong with edgy humor on its own but it is objectively the entry point into the alt-right, they have cultivated spaces on the internet, reddit especially, to redpill people and draw them in, because they know the primary maker and consumer of memes are kids and young people. How many racist jokes and bits does Pewdiepie have to make before people realize willing or not hes a fucking icon for those people. If the alt-right is rallying behind you, you're doing something very fucking wrong.
The problem is when you try to tell people they always act defensively,Its a hard truth to swallow that just joking about things can normalize them but the fact that something like Poe's Law exists should be proof enough of it.
Remember when 4chan used to say things like "Any Community that gets its kicks by acting like retards will soon be overrun by retards thinking their great company". That's the reality we live in, theirs a reason why this isn't said on 4chan anymore, that's because it actually happened just with neo-Nazi's.
He's almost definitely just an illiterate moron, but he's still quoting verbatim the myths written by neo-nazi propaganda author David Irving.
yeah, that is a problem, but Riller made it sound like he thought he was a neo-nazi or something.
and in all likelyhood he probably got the Dresden stuff from whatever Kurt Vonneguet book mentioned them - and when Vonneguet had written that book they were taken to be more accurate numbers.
Still isn't smart to repeat stuff like that you get out of a novel, but yea a bit more context to it all.
I wonder where they're coming from, maybe its coming from the survivors of an intense fire bombing of an unprotected city for instilling terror"
Note: the bombing occurred three days after the Yalta conference was concluded, when the red army was roughly 40 mi away from Berlin.
Even Churchill didn't like the fact the RAF bombed Dresden.
"the moment has come when the question of bombing German cities simply for the sake of increasing terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed."3
He added that "the destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing… I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives… rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction."
The bombing of Dresden was controversial at the time of the bombing as Germany had no hope of winning the war, It was a matter of how long would they last.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-47201136/uk-ww2-veteran-says-dresden-bombings-were-a-war-crime
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/15/bombing-dresden-war-crime
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/11410633/Dresden-was-a-civilian-town-with-no-military-significance.-Why-did-we-burn-its-people.html
Here are some pictures, not for the faint of heart though:
https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-dresden-germany-bombing-world-war-ii-2018-2#dresdens-defenders-put-up-little-fight-as-the-bombing-began-on-the-night-of-february-13-of-the-hundreds-of-british-bombers-that-swarmed-the-city-just-six-lancaster-bombers-were-downed-by-the-morning-of-february-14-some-800-raf-bombers-had-dropped-over-2500-tons-of-high-explosive-and-incendiary-bombs-7
Dresden certainly wasn't bombed after the Germans surrendered, but it certainly wasn't bombed as a valuable military target, it was bombed as a last part of the terror bombing campaign.
Torygraph is lying as usual I see. Dresden was described as one of the Reich's main industrial centers, Oberkommando Heeres (OKH, German high command) regarded Dresden as a major producer of military materiel with over 120 factories including, among other things, a Zeiss gunsight factory, a Lehman heavy gun plant, the Goye and Co. chemical lab producing poison gas, and multiple others producing tank components; also within the city were military barracks and a munitions depot. A US Army Colonel was taken through the city the day before the bombing began and described it as looking more like a military base than a city, saying the railyards contained "miles of freight cars loaded with supplies" bound eastward for the Russian front. Additionally it's rather questionable to describe it as primarily a fire bombing, a total of eight bombing raids targeted Dresden, exactly one of which struck the city center, and of those eight only five even involved the use of fire bombs at all, and even for those five raids the tonnage of fire bombs in use was significantly less than that of conventional high explosives (total firebombing tonnage was 1822.5, total HE tonnage in those same five raids was 4711.9, plus an additional 566.1 tons of HE dropped in raids that did not involve the use of incendiaries).
Those details were pointed out in General Harris' response to Churchill's statements, and Churchill would publicly withdraw his protest against bomber command upon reading Harris' letter of justification.
Dresden is such a strange choice of a city for neo-nazis to seize on as an alleged allied war crime when the majority of German and Japanese cities were bombed significantly harder, Berlin alone was subjected to almost 10 times as many tons of bombs, and Japan was extensively fire bombed.
In addition to what @ASparkle noted, the city was a major communications and railhub for the Werhmacht. Dresden was 100% a military target.
In the interest of disclosure I should mention that the majority of fire bombs were dropped in that one raid that did target the city center (over 1000 tons), although every single raid involving fire bombs also involved a greater tonnage of conventional HE bombs, so not a single one of the bombing raids was primarily incendiary.
Alright guess I'll pull out the credentials-card here, as if that ever works in internet discussions.
Hello, I am Riller, when I'm not busy shitposting on Facepunch and making you mad that your favourite youtubers are terrible people, I run about doing my low-paying job with a MA in European History. Currently, I'm also involved in writing an anthology on the Danish jews deported to Theresienstadt (don't tell my mom, the book is a surprise she thinks I'm just wasting my time and i think it'd be funny if I just turn up one day at home and go "Oh by the way I wrote a contribution to this here book i'm a real scientist lol")
The very first rule us contributors got told by the prof. who's putting it all together was don't write down a death unless you're 100% fucking certain it happened. Now, you might think this is just a question of historical accuracy, right? After all, we got to be truthful for the sake of science! But then again, that's no-shit-sherloc level crap for historians. Basic history 101: Don't make shit up, it's frowned upon. No, the reason we specifically got told that before working on this problem is, nazis love bad history. The moment you make a mistake, they'll jump on it. The moment you say anything relevant to them, like holocaust-research or general WWII history, and you misrepresent anything, they'll jump on it.
An example of this is one of the Danish holocaust-survivors I've spoken to as part of the project, who found his own name on a memorial of dead children. This was a pretty bad time for him for several reasons, it's never fun to read your own name on a list of dead people. It also means that some historian compiling that list did a bad job at being a historian. It was also a massive political problem, because that tiny mistake is perfect ammunition for holocaust-deniers. How can it be that this name of a live person is on this wall? Clearly, because the holocaust didn't happen, and Mr. Katznelson is a 1940's crisis actor! Nazis love that shit. Nazis love when people are wrong, because it's a crack that they can cram their gross little fingers into, pry at, and get a hold. Luckily, after no small amount of back-and-forth with the Czech museum, he had the wall corrected and had them re-check the memorial, yielding about a dozen other corrections.
Same goes the other way around. You misrepresent 25.000 (clearly tragic, questionably justified) deaths of Germans as being 300.000, and misrepresent the date to be after the surrender, instead of after the conference about how to end the war? They're gonna take those numbers, and they're gonna run with them. How can you blame the nazis for the holocaust, which didn't happen at all because Katznelson is still alive, when the Allies committed war crimes of this scale? And we're supposed to believe the nazis are the bad guys? When the Allies can claim 300.000 murders as military necessity? Churchill and the liberal world were the real nazis here. Clearly.
And you can't correct them. History is written by the victors, they'll just say. Ignoring the fact that the 25.000 figure came from the Germans themselves, and the 300.000 number was made up by post-war apologists. Ignoring the fact that Dredsen was, when it all comes down to it, a military target thanks to its industry. They don't care, because being wrong fits their agenda. And the best thing you can do for them, whether you're a nazi or just a useful idiot, is to question the truth, and spread their lie. So call out the bullshit when you see it. You can't convince the nazis, but you'll at least be a counter for those in doubt.
h3h3: world police
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
