Hi, I'm one of the mods here and definitely appreciate your perspective. I also wanted to add a little different perspective that might explain why some answers can come off this way. Often, the mods and flairs and people answering the questions are "tuned in" to certain language and points that others aren't. We see a lot of questions every single day, so we see a lot of patterns that more casual readers probably miss. And so sometimes, a response can look testy or aggressive to someone unfamiliar just coming across the thread, but there are other factors at play that they might not be considering.

One thing that can be quite hard to navigate is the idea of the "dog whistle." Like a whistle that humans can't hear but dogs can, a rhetorical dog whistle is a statement that seems one way to most people, but carries a coded meaning to others. A common example in American politics is the use of terms like "urban crime," "inner city problems," etc., where the implication is that the "urban" or "inner-city" people perpetrating those crimes are Black. Speaking about "urban crime" can be a way for a racist to paint Black people as violent criminals without ever saying the word "Black." Other racists know exactly what they mean, but there's a veil of plausible deniability since the language is coded, and others may think that they're actually talking strictly about crimes in cities.

A related issue is what's often called "JAQing off," where JAQ stands for "just asking questions." The idea is that someone poses questions about the veracity of something without ever saying that they actually doubt that that thing occurred. If someone pulls them up, they can say "oh I was just asking questions about XYZ," but the gist of the questions is always casting doubt on XYZ.

We see "JAQing off" a fair bit in genocide denial. For example, someone will ask questions about the various figures and estimates given for victims of the Holocaust. Things like "if 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust, how come [some purported document showing fewer]?" might seem like a legitimate question to someone who doesn't know better. However, these questions are often about denialist statements that have been debunked many times before, and the point of "JAQing off" is not to actually get an answer to them (they know what the answer will be), it's to continue to perpetuate the "controversy."

Finally, people come from a wide variety of perspectives here on AskHistorians. It can be important to realize that what for one person is a purely academic exercise in thinking about history can be very personal to someone else. As a straight cis guy, I don't necessarily see myself in the stories of gay and trans people in the past, but others very much do. On the other hand, as a Filipino-American I see myself in many questions about Filipino history, and they can feel very personal to me. When we talk about residential schools in the US and Canada, or slavery in the Americas, or Jewish people in the Holocaust, we're talking about the direct ancestors and family members of millions of people, who could very well be reading that very question.

So, beyond just the content of the questions or what they're asking, it's important to word them respectfully. We often remove questions and ask for re-wording when we feel that there's cause to do so. We'll also remove very obvious denialism questions, and we have macros for certain topics that come up time and time again. However, it's important to realize that it's all people modding and writing answers here, and sometimes something just doesn't sit right! That's the human response. There's often a reason behind it, even if it's not apparent. And don't worry, if we mods see things getting uncivil, we are very quick to step in and sort it out.

Hope this explains at least a bit of the dynamic at play.

The problem is without specifics I don't really know what you're referring to. I can't think of any examples where this was really the case. Nothing has stuck out to me on this. So idk.

It kind of feels like a "strawman" to go on at length and refuse to give even 1 example.

If you had at least one example rather than being vague and somewhat cryptic, maybe others would have been able to judge your intent rather than you having to included a paragraph about how "progressive minded" you are (self-reports of this nature have a tendency not to reflect reality). Just a thought.

Also, there are often questions that read like literally copy pastes from a college/university essay question. I think people aren't as kind in their responses if they get the sense the OP is essentially Asking Historians to do their homework for them.

While i love the conscious writting about this, I also a bit fear the concept of dog whistling. In context of a simple problem. What can be used as unconscious or hidden secound speech in one democratic regime, can also be very acceptable in other; just from the fact they have different historical events and concepts. Therefore, the wording and the time-place frame needs to be clear, in my perspective.

For example: My girlfriend is brasilian and im portuguese. We both study history but our concepts of social justice, racism, socialism, vary a bit to a lot. Now, Brasil and Portugal speak almost the same language and are historical strongly linked. But other historical events (Brasil being close to USA, ans Portugal to UE) changes a lot of things. This was something that preplexed us both. Which made us accept, even on this global reality there are in fact particularities (somewhat).

Has for dog whistling, sometimes what can be discussed and challenged in one country can not be in others, just from the simple fact of different frames. Therefore, could very easily sound as dog whistling.

I hope it made makes any sense, as I think it's also important attend to geografic frames in global discussions.

I think a lot of times people are smarmy about 'JAQing' off because they also assume a base of knowledge that is not universal.

​

You can get Holocaust Questions that seem like the questioner is using Holocaust denial dogwhistles, but it is also a distinct possibility that the questioner knows nothing about the Holocaust.

Using the Holocaust as an example, it is a topic that is always taught in the West, but the fact that it is taught to almost everyone there means that the quality of the instruction can wildly differ, and be full of its own assumptions and idiocies that make them question other things they have heard about it.

​

I can assure you as a child I was told in school that the Nazis would literally murder people for not having blue eyes, when we know this is wildly untrue. Learning that it was untrue made me question everything else I had heard about the Holocaust, because if that basic fact was wrong then what else was I being misled about? This is why an innocent question can seem nefarious - because someone was taught complete bullshit in school and it is now up to them to muddle their way out of it on their own. They can't assume what they heard in school was true at all.

We also have to remember that in some parts of the world the Holocaust is considered a footnote in history. Hitler never murdered anyone in Asia - most Vietnamese schoolchildren hear some vague 'Hitler-Bad' stuff but kind of put him in the box of all the other horrible little strongmen they hear about because no one goes into detail on the events since they didn't directly affect the people here. Their knowledge of Hitler comes from pop culture which can lead to its own set of assumptions, particularly when Hitler appears in sillier things like Wolfenstein or Inglourious Basterds where he is portrayed more as a cartoon than a real person.

Imho the moderation is actually too lax and reveals a strong lack of self-criticism and self-awareness. Habitually, but particularly when something is in the news, there’s tons of extremely tendentious questions that get validated (by not being deleted) and then even more so with a tepid answer that does not explicitly contradict the counter factual assumptions in the question. There’s should be a stronger effort to remove and dispel Western propaganda.

Edit: thx for the downvotes and confirming the lack of scholarly rigor and abundant Western supremacism of the sub

Agreed in full. The passive-aggressive nature of some of these responses in incredibly off-putting and reflects badly on the answerer. This is a shame, because they're otherwise being quite generous in taking the time to write thorough responses in their free time. I can only imagine that the vast majority of them are good people, generous people, and that they honestly want to help make the world a better place. There's just a small subset of them that seem to be so caught up in vanquishing perceived demons that they're instead terrorizing the villagers (so to speak). If someone as busy as a fully credentialed academic is going to take the time to respond to a question, the very lowest standard should be the presumption of good faith in the question itself. Otherwise, who has the time to waste?

Also, and separately from OP's point, my experience in academia (albeit far removed from historians specifically) suggests to me that this sort of response tactic often comes from a place of insecurity or inflexibility on the part of the academic answering. I never hear this sort of condescending nonsense when I'm talking to a Nobel laureate or the Executive Director of a big pharmaceutical company or an NAS member who's a subject-matter expert on the topic in question. It always comes from the postdoc in the next lab over who hasn't quite grasped their project, or an adjunct professor at the third-best state school in a mid-sized state. I'm sure we have some top-tier talent here from the team answering questions, but occasionally I read a response and I wonder if the quality control missed a step.