"Beat me to death"

Darth Rotor said:
What world religion? If you are referring to Christianity, it took some centuries for it to grow into a regional religion, then an imperial religion, and then some more centuries for it to spread over the world, in which case it stuck, and didn't stick, unevenly.

Or do you refer to Islam?

Do you actually understand what you are asking?
Click to expand...

Okay, let me rephrase: instead of "a world religion", use "the dominant religion pretty much any place they lived in".

More overstatement "for all that time" which ignores the actual time line which is NOT your posited 2000 years. I give the Jews a lot of credit for surviving as a culture when their homeland was overrun by the Romans. They ate whatever crap they had to, with locals, and put up with second class citizen status as a survival skill. There are plenty of peoples who didn't, and either disappeared or were assimilated, over your same two thousand years.
Click to expand...

Oh. And since they put up with it, it means they were not the victims of it? :confused:

What are you referring to, in detail?
Click to expand...

Being, well, "asked" to "borrow" money to whoever it was that ruled whatever place they lived in, knowing perfectly well (whether it was explicitly stated or not) that compliance with such "requests" was the only thing keeping the ruler from simply confiscating what they owned and killing or expelled them.

Do you refer to the Russian Kulaks here? ;) The Formosans? The non Han Chinese?
Click to expand...

Unless you are even dumber than you are pretending, you know exactly who I am pretending to.

That one I get.
Click to expand...

Well, finally.

I am wondering if using hyperbole to frame the question will get you the answer you desire. I understand the point you are trying to make, but I find the way you are trying to make it overly emotional, and in so being crafted less deserving of a serious response by the target of your disdain.
Click to expand...

How about you prove that "hyperbole" thing by showing me either that these things did not happen to the jews, or that there are other groups who had the same things happen to them?

And I´m not even waiting for chillzero to actually explain why my post earns her oh-so-righteous condemnation.
 
Wolfman said:
...and Oliver continues to fail to answer my question
Click to expand...

Mine too.

Never mind, I'm sure that there'll be some further diversion supplied in the thread to play the 'my people are more worthy of their victim status than any other victims ever' game regardless of whether that's the topic or not.

MaGZ, in response to your posts. It was my understanding too that caustic lime, etc were used to dispose of bodies. However, it's not beyond the realms of possibility (it's even been documented, I'm sure) that not everyone who ended up in these pits were dead immediately. I don't really see how that is a point worth making - these people were being killed systematically either way.

Oliver seems to be saying (as I asked him earlier for clarification, I'm still not sure) that freedom of speech led to this situation. What's your take on the dangers of free speech?
 
(Caveat - I do not in fact support the German laws and especially not how they are apparently prosecuted - added this caveat because it would seem for some people that trying to understand something is to support it.)

The idea that there is some absolute right to "freedom of speech" is not held by any of the countries the folks in this thread are from. All of our societies and countries sets limits on our freedom to speech. So the idea that the Germans are somehow backward (or even more silly "barbaric") because they have laws that restrict the freedom of speech in some circumstances is simply wrong.

The issue is simply where should the line be drawn? When you look at the actual German legislation there seems to be two major areas that it is meant to deal with, one is the idea of "denigrating" people (died or alive) that have been victims of certain crimes where the motivation was racist/ethnic/cultural/bigotry and the second where there is "incitement".

Now the second part, the incitement, is part of all our legal systems, some countries have specific legislation, some still retain the older "common law" approach but it is recognised that at times speech alone can be the basis of committing a criminal act - even if no "real world" criminal act follows. So in the USA & UK you can be tried simply for trying to incite someone else to commit a murder, whether the other person goes on to commit the murder or not.

So the question is really "Is "holocaust denial" on it's own 'incitement in this sense?". And I think to simply say "no" (or "yes") without examining the specifics of a country and society and culture is to approach the question with a lack of critical thinking. My view is, as I said above, that it is in fact not enough and whereas I could support the German prosecutors prosecuting anyone who was using "Holocaust denial" to directly entice others to commit crimes how I have seen it be used by the German prosecutors doesn't seem to fit in with this approach.

The other part of the German legislation (the denigration part) is the one I have major issues with and one that I have yet heard any strong argument to support. Yes it can be very unpleasant to be on the receiving end of bigotry and hatred but as long as it doesn't cross the line into actual action (or of course isn't in itself incitement to others to commit a crime) then I do not support the idea of restricting free speech on the grounds of "denigration".

(This is of course based on what I understand the German legislation to be and how it is actually used in Germany, which I base on English translations of the German legislation and reports of court cases since I don't read German well enough to read the legislation or German court records.)
 
chillzero said:
Mine too.

Never mind, I'm sure that there'll be some further diversion supplied in the thread to play the 'my people are more worthy of their victim status than any other victims ever' game regardless of whether that's the topic or not.

MaGZ, in response to your posts. It was my understanding too that caustic lime, etc were used to dispose of bodies. However, it's not beyond the realms of possibility (it's even been documented, I'm sure) that not everyone who ended up in these pits were dead immediately. I don't really see how that is a point worth making - these people were being killed systematically either way.

Oliver seems to be saying (as I asked him earlier for clarification, I'm still not sure) that freedom of speech led to this situation. What's your take on the dangers of free speech?
Click to expand...


Yes, I'm saying that even suggesting that "Obama is conspiring with terrorists",
to make an analogy to recent events, pretty quickly can turn into "Obama
is a Terrorist", which also quickly could lead to physical violence if spinning
out of control.

All of that happened over here very quickly in light of blaming the Jews
for the economical disaster at the time. At the Reichskristallnacht, the
taboo between speech and violence broke with drastic consequences
for millions of people, which then led to the decision to implement laws
preventing those incidents.

It's not that hard to grasp in light of Germany's history - nor does
the vast majority think it's some sort of limitation of Freedom of Speech.
Quite the opposite, it's incredibly annoying to argue with holocaust
ignorants for Germans because they know for fact what happened
from either own experiences or their parents/grandparents. Therefore
People are happy to have those laws in place.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
The idea that there is some absolute right to "freedom of speech" is not held by any of the countries the folks in this thread are from.
Click to expand...
Nor did anyone claim such, so I have no idea why you felt the need to make this point.

All of our societies and countries sets limits on our freedom to speech. So the idea that the Germans are somehow backward (or even more silly "barbaric") because they have laws that restrict the freedom of speech in some circumstances is simply wrong.
Click to expand...
If you take the position that denying the Holocaust or other Nazi atrocities is tantamount to incitement of the German masses (which seems to be the premise of these laws) then there certainly is something backwards or barbaric among Germans, because no other western country (even ones dominated by Oliver's "Caucasians") seems to have a problem with people inciting riots, violence, or destruction merely by denying the Holocaust or other Nazi atrocities. If you take the position that Germans are actually not barbaric and uncivilized then why the need for these laws?

Now the second part, the incitement, is part of all our legal systems, some countries have specific legislation, some still retain the older "common law" approach but it is recognised that at times speech alone can be the basis of committing a criminal act - even if no "real world" criminal act follows. So in the USA & UK you can be tried simply for trying to incite someone else to commit a murder, whether the other person goes on to commit the murder or not.
Click to expand...
If your words are intended to get others to commit a crime you are not being charged for "speech alone" - you are being charged with attempting to get others to commit a criminal act.

The rest of your post I agree with.
 
Last edited:
OLiver,
Do you think that nobody ever said a bad word against the jews before the nazis?

Do you think that had the jews not been a handy scapegoat, that none of what happened around WW2 would have happened?
Do you really believe that it was words, and not anything else that led to the violence?
 
chillzero said:
OLiver,
Do you think that nobody ever said a bad word against the jews before the nazis?

Do you think that had the jews not been a handy scapegoat, that none of what happened around WW2 would have happened?
Do you really believe that it was words, and not anything else that led to the violence?
Click to expand...

Even if, he would be hard pressed to demonstrate that it was holocaust denial that led to the holocaust ...
 
chillzero said:
OLiver,
Do you think that nobody ever said a bad word against the jews before the nazis?

Do you think that had the jews not been a handy scapegoat, that none of what happened around WW2 would have happened?
Do you really believe that it was words, and not anything else that led to the violence?
Click to expand...


You may misunderstand that the law isn't about Anti-Semitism or
specifically Jewish People. It's about the Human Factor of blaming
others for the circumstances they live in - and about the reputation
of dead people who cannot defend themselves.

So while a factual debate of the Holocaust isn't a legal problem at
all, to ridicule the Events against minorities, including Jews, in light
of the data the Nazis produced, the witnesses to the events, the
footage and all the other evidence like mass graves, is a problem
that the law does prevent - including Anti-semitic propaganda, an
quite important tool for Neo-Nazis to spread their "Ideas". Of course
they don't like it.

Well, as I said - it was words in combination of rough times, propaganda
and a general distrust against Jews. For example:

Hyperinflation did not directly bring about the Nazi takeover of Germany; the inflation ended with the introduction of the Rentenmark and the Weimar Republic continued for a decade afterward. The inflation did, however, raise doubts about the competence of liberal institutions, especially amongst a middle class who had held cash savings and bonds. It also produced resentment of Germany's bankers and speculators, many of them Jewish, whom the [free-speech*]-government and [free-speech*]-press blamed for the inflation. Source
Click to expand...


*Added by me

And yes, while WW2 most probably would have happened anyway,
the Holocaust may have been preventable.
 
Last edited:
Oliver said:
You may misunderstand that the law isn't about Anti-Semitism or
specifically Jewish People. It's about the Human Factor of blaming
others for the circumstances they live in - and about the reputation
of dead people who cannot defend themselves.

So while a factual debate of the Holocaust isn't a legal problem at
all, to ridicule the Events against minorities, including Jews, in light
of the data the Nazis produced, the witnesses to the events, the
footage and all the other evidence like mass graves, is a problem
that the law does prevent - including Anti-semitic propaganda, an
quite important tool for Neo-Nazis to spread their "Ideas". Of course
they don't like it.

Well, as I said - it was words in combination of rough times, propaganda
and a general distrust against Jews. For example:




*Added by me

And yes, while WW2 most probably would have happened anyway,
the Holocaust may have been preventable.
Click to expand...

So, is it any political, religious, or different groups that you want to apply this to? Stopping any speech that might lead to a demonization of a particular group?
 
Chaos,

I don't think anyone is trying to diminish the severity of what the jews have gone through as much as level a field where this applies to everyone. I could be wrong, but that's where I see them going with it. Do we protect one group more than others specifically because they have gone through more historically? And if we do, how large is that umbrella going to be?
 
Chaos said:
Then tell me, smart ass, which religious, cultural or ethnic group, other than the jews...

... has been the focus of demonization by a world religion for about 2,000 years, as well as the designated chew toy for many generations of pious bullies?
... has been stuck into ghettos, subjected to humiliating special laws, used as a scapegoat, and targetted by pogroms over and over again for all that time?
... has been extorted by the people whose theoretical duty it should have been to protect their lives in return for the promise to provide this protection, which of course was conveniently forgotten at any opportune moment?
... was the target one of the most thorough and intentional campaigns of genocide in history, and THE main victim of one of the vilest regimes in history?
... has then had insult added to injury by having the intellectual heirs of said regime (among others) turn around and claim victim status, stating that the abovementioned extinction event was a hoax perpetrated by the group in order to extort money and a country from the rest of the world?

No, really, tell me. I´m curious.
Click to expand...

Well, I can't deny that my ass is apparently a lot smarter than you, but that doesn't really excuse you from actually reading posts before you respond with a load of irrelevant, ranting crap. Now, why don't you try again and actually learn something. You see all those examples of genocide I noted? You see the ones that actually involved killing more people than the Nazis killed Jews? You see the ones that involved wiping out a far higher proportion of ethnicities than the Nazis ever did? You see the ones that involved killing people in more brutal ways at a much higher rate than the Nazis did?

Seriously, get over yourself. Jews have been treated badly sometimes. Great. So have lots of other people. In fact, some have been treated so badly that they no longer even exist. The Nazi's treatment of the Jews was pretty bad, but it is by no means unique, and was not even the worst example of this kind of behaviour. Now please, if you actually have a coherent argument to make, feel free to do so, but enough with the blind ranting already.

Tailgater said:
Chaos,

I don't think anyone is trying to diminish the severity of what the jews have gone through as much as level a field where this applies to everyone. I could be wrong, but that's where I see them going with it. Do we protect one group more than others specifically because they have gone through more historically? And if we do, how large is that umbrella going to be?
Click to expand...

Exactly. My whole point, both in this thread and the one I first posted that list in, is that no-one is special. Humans have acted inhumanely to each other for about as long as there have been humans. Setting one group apart from the rest not only doesn't help matters, it is exactly the kind of behviour that leads to this sort of thing in the first place.

I find it particularly ironic, and rather worrying, that it is those claiming special victim status that are the ones who seem to most want to discriminate against others here. Bad things may have happened in the past, but doing the same bad things yourself is not going to improve things. The saying "Two wrongs don't make a right." is very much true. The Nazis started by censoring the Jews. If we censor the Nazis, how are we any better than them?
 
Gotta' say, Oliver's blatant willingness to simply ignore questions that happen to be inconvenient to his own arguments is quite impressive. In my original post (the one I'm still waiting for Oliver to respond to), I said this:
Bush & Oliver -- same tactics, same arguments. Repression/denial of basic democratic freedoms justified through use of fear tactics and vague claims that such repression is necessary to "prevent" the same tragedies from happening again.
Click to expand...
Let me now add:

Bush & Oliver -- same tactics, same arguments. If someone raises an argument that is too difficult to answer, or demonstrates the basic fallacies of your own argument, simply ignore it and rant about something else, hoping to distract people and lead them away from the original argument.
 
chillzero said:
hmmm....
Do you think the jews were the only victims of the holocaust?
Click to expand...


Why should I think that? Other minorities like mentally ill, gays, disabled
persons, POW's, Gypsies and others were systematically killed as well:


 
Oliver said:
Why should I think that? Other minorities like mentally ill, gays, disabled
persons, POW's, Gypsies and others were systematically killed as well:


Click to expand...
Yet your argument seemed to be that the holocaust wouldn't have happened if it were not for free speech and the repression of the jews (specifically).

So I'm back to my original question. What's your point?

What point are you trying to make about free speech, and why are you relating it specifically to the holocaust? Do you think you could state clearly what exactly it is you are trying to argue here?
 
Tailgater said:
So, is it any political, religious, or different groups that you want to apply this to? Stopping any speech that might lead to a demonization of a particular group?
Click to expand...


No, not at all. The laws in place are fine the way they are. And they
don't get you in trouble unless you're threatening someone or group
by propagating violence or hate. Go to the next Townhall and scream:
"Death to the President" and you will know what I mean.

Could you imagine the Washington Post and MSNBC ranting about
"Jews brought us into the financial mess" or worse? In Germany,
that was the case in the free Media. Without any facts whatsoever
besides the fact that many Jews happened to be banker.

So you may also call the laws an adjustment that pushes the radical
media to be careful about what they make up.
 
chillzero said:
Yet your argument seemed to be that the holocaust wouldn't have happened if it were not for free speech and the repression of the jews (specifically).

So I'm back to my original question. What's your point?

What point are you trying to make about free speech, and why are you relating it specifically to the holocaust? Do you think you could state clearly what exactly it is you are trying to argue here?
Click to expand...


I'm not arguing at all, just stating the fact that the Holocaust led
to the laws we have regarding hate speech. Plus growing up with
those laws, I don't see any difference between similar Libel/Slander
laws in other western societies.

So I'm rather wondering about what point you people are trying
to make here. Maybe that the speech limiting laws in the US
should be abolished? :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom