Childlike Empress
Banned
He's claimed for years that he is in Nigeria. His website is in the Soviet Union but I'm sure you are clever enough to know that already.
Merged General Holocaust denial discussion Part IV
- Thread starter Jeffk 1970
- Start date
He's claimed for years that he is in Nigeria. His website is in the Soviet Union but I'm sure you are clever enough to know that already.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Giwer actually showed up here for a short space of time a few years ago.
I think he was a creature of usenet, and never adjusted to usenet basicallly being phased out in favor of the Web.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 67,108
Your tone trolling is boring along with the whataboutism. Just why should people who ignore the massive evidence of what you call "one of the best-documented historical events ever", not be treated at least some of the time with sarcasm and contempt for their idiocy.
Do you also agree that so many, in fact the great majority, of deniers are motivated by Anti-Semitic crap? And the fact so much of Denier bilge is in fact motivated by hate is of course a very important reason for for them getting treated with contempt.
As for this
"The Foucaultian approach, that "facts don't matter, feelings do" is going to turn on you. You see, the Muslims on campus feel hurt by claims that the Holocaust happened."
Hilarious. That one is an ocean full of straw. It is precisely because Deniers ignore facts, evidence etc., to a truly amazing degree that elicits contempt and sarcasm. The fact that when confronted by evidence they chant, "Liar, Liar!!", "Forgery, Forgery!!". Which if you go back in the various denial threads is abundantly in evidence. And the icing on the cake is the obsession of the great majority of Deniers with the "evil Jews".
As for Deniers throwing back the sarcasm I guess you are not familiar with the history of Denial writing much of it is full of sarcasm, contempt and it long pre-dates the period in which people paid much attention to it. I could mention say The Drama of the European Jews, from 1964 as a start. And for an exercise in sarcasm how about you look up when David Irving described survivors of Auschwitz has A********.
As for intersectionality, Foucault, cancelation and other red herrings. Just what do they have to do with this? The Deniers ignore facts and the primary motivation of the great majority is Anti-Semitic animas. In many Deniers the hate positively oozes out.
As for evidence the various threads in this forum concerning Holocaust Denial have supplied it in spades and the Denier's responding to it have again and again resorted to shrieking "Liar!!", "Forgery!".
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
Childlike Empress
Banned
Childlike Empress
Banned
I realise I'm late to the show, but I was wondering if there had been talk of the Niemann album and the photos within, some of which included Sobibor, that suddenly appeared last year? It would be interesting to see someone with expertise in the camp put the photos into context, especially the one showing parts of Lager I and the Vorlager.
Nick Terry
Illuminator
There was a discussion on this last year at Skeptics Society Forum. My initial take on the album:
https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=748822#p748822
The photos of personnel are extremely revealing, but yes there are some photos of the camp or outer camp.
Just made public last week is a document exhibition on Sobibor, from the Russian archives, with 100+ sources, including photos from after the site was overrun in 1944, plus German documents, including a report on the shooting of Herbert Floss by apparently drunk Trawnikis on the way back from handing over the last Treblinka workers to Sobibor.
https://statearchive.ru/sobibor/01.html
Hello. Sorry for off-topic, but where I can see discussion about Holocaust (in forums, chats between people and etc)? Please, don't offer RODOH (these deniers really silly) and Codoh (I read,that this forum has censiorship). If you link for not odd time, it would be perfect. I just interested how they (deniers) tried to proof.
P. S. My knowledge on Enghlish not well so I can make mistakes.
P. S. My knowledge on Enghlish not well so I can make mistakes.
Last edited:
Carrot Flower King
Janitor of Lunacy
Try reading Richard J Evans "Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust and the David Irving Trial" (published in the UK as "Telling Lies About Hitler...").
Unfortunately this is an English language book and I don't know if there are translations, but it does go into quite some detail about how Irving tried to "prove" that the Holocaust did not happen.
Sorry, but I mean discussion between people (in forums, social network and etc) (but anyway thanks)
Last edited:
mikegriffith1
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2012
- Messages
- 803
I have noticed that Holocaust deniers almost invariably turn out to be very anti-Israeli, which casts doubt on their claim that Holocaust denial is not anti-Semitic. In most cases, Holocaust deniers argue that Israel is an oppressive, violent regime that has abused and even murdered tens of thousands of Palestinians, which is false.
On the other hand, in some cases, some Holocaust defenders have gone too far in labeling persons as Holocaust deniers when those persons do not deny that millions of Jews were murdered but disagree with certain secondary elements of the Holocaust.
When you say, "John Doe denies the Holocaust," I assume that John Doe claims that well under 1 million Jews were murdered. If John Doe says that "up to 2 million" Jews were murdered, I still put that in the category of Holocaust denial, though I wouldn't find that view as offensive as saying that fewer than 1 million Jews were murdered.
But if someone says that, at the very least, 3 million Jews were murdered, I do not call that Holocaust denial, as long as the person also acknowledges that this mass murder was a horrific crime and that Hitler and his fellow henchmen (Himmler, Heydrich, Muller, etc.) were responsible for this atrocity and should have been executed for it. If they claim that the Nazi leadership did not deserve capital punishment for this mass murder, I view that as Holocaust denial.
On the other hand, in some cases, some Holocaust defenders have gone too far in labeling persons as Holocaust deniers when those persons do not deny that millions of Jews were murdered but disagree with certain secondary elements of the Holocaust.
When you say, "John Doe denies the Holocaust," I assume that John Doe claims that well under 1 million Jews were murdered. If John Doe says that "up to 2 million" Jews were murdered, I still put that in the category of Holocaust denial, though I wouldn't find that view as offensive as saying that fewer than 1 million Jews were murdered.
But if someone says that, at the very least, 3 million Jews were murdered, I do not call that Holocaust denial, as long as the person also acknowledges that this mass murder was a horrific crime and that Hitler and his fellow henchmen (Himmler, Heydrich, Muller, etc.) were responsible for this atrocity and should have been executed for it. If they claim that the Nazi leadership did not deserve capital punishment for this mass murder, I view that as Holocaust denial.
Nick Terry
Illuminator
Hi Korvin, these threads here used to be much more active a decade ago, deniers have become thinner on the ground.
Currently there is one denier posting at Skeptics Society Forum under the handle of 'Gibson'. SSF had more deniers visiting in the past few years than ISF, but most of them got banned after a while.
https://www.skepticforum.com/viewforum.php?f=39
Re-reading old discussion threads can be interesting to show how deniers argue; the threads here are very long but pretty good - lots of members here contributed back when there might be several deniers trying to proselytise.
Nick Terry
Illuminator
I don't think anyone has ever really claimed 3 million died instead of 5-6 million, there's really no middle ground. The deniers who 'accept' more mass shootings and ghetto deaths but deny gassing tend to come in under 2 million.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Just rewatched "Denial". It has flaws, but it's a good movie.
It aired on the telly over here a few weeks ago, and I agree with your sentiment.
There were a few things I thought were a bit overdramatized for effect, and try as he might, Timothy Spall just reminds me too much of his other roles to make it as a convincing David Irving.