Keplers wrote:
It seems like most of the problems stem from abusive language regarding the disabled, though the concentration camp jokes crop up. My main question then: is mentioning historical figures really disallowed? I know they're
bad, yes, but usually we're talking about them in a pretty mocking way, i.e. Mussolini is incompetent and pompous, or if someone says something with the right details we may make an analogy with "that's what _____ thought in [date]," referring to a battle.
For example, for my German lessons last night, example sentences came up that translated to, "In Moscow is it cold in the winter," and "In Egypt it is hot in the summer." I said "that's what the Germans wrote home in '41/'43" respectively.
That specific sentence doesn't mention Göring (who even while he was a prominent figure was the subject of fat jokes), but some instances may make him relevant.
My reasoning for this is that most of the authoritarian figures were not monsters in their own right but were monsters as a result of complicity with the machine (some of them, like Göring, were more guilty by association than anything, and didn't personally order any atrocities). My next reasoning is that if people can handle their names being used in true, historical context, then they can handle the names being used for true, historical analogies to present day situations.
That said, it's your call regardless of my reason for asking, and I want to know.
Mentioning historical figures in either analogy or historical context is not inherently against the rules, no. Users are most certainly free to discuss fascist dictators and genocidal maniacs and whatnot so long as the discussion does not involve offensive rhetoric (i.e. "Hitler's actions against Jews were justified"). For example, discussing Mussolini's incompetent military tactics or Vlad the Impaler's war against the Ottoman Empire is completely allowed.
</noscript> Glad we straightened that out.
</noscript>
