No. I disagree. It's actually rather brave to question elements of a victors-write-the-history narrative. And I don't think it can be denied that the Holocaust narrative is quite flattering to the victors of World War II and stigmatizing to the conquored. It doesn't mean that the Holocaust narrative doesn't also happen to be true. But in my opinion it's asinine power-aligning to engage in over-the-top name calling of holocaust skeptics by calling them "annoying" "offensive" "childish" and "demented". At worst, I think by being eccentrics, cranks, and nonconformists ot the majority's narrative, holocaust deniers help prove the existence of free thought in our society and give space to it. If the holocaust narrative is true, it's facts should speak for themselves. One shouldn't need to intimidate or shame people into claiming they believe it.
Holocaust Denial.
- Thread starter EGarrett
- Start date
-
- Tags
- holocaust denial
No. I disagree. It's actually rather brave to question elements of a victors-write-the-history narrative. And I don't think it can be denied that the Holocaust narrative is quite flattering to the victors of World War II and stigmatizing to the conquored. It doesn't mean that the Holocaust narrative doesn't also happen to be true. But in my opinion it's asinine power-aligning to engage in over-the-top name calling of holocaust skeptics by calling them "annoying" "offensive" "childish" and "demented". At worst, I think by being eccentrics, cranks, and nonconformists ot the majority's narrative, holocaust deniers help prove the existence of free thought in our society and give space to it. If the holocaust narrative is true, it's facts should speak for themselves. One shouldn't need to intimidate or shame people into claiming they believe it.
Free speech works both ways Dave. Just as they have the right to "question" the facts, we have the right to point out just how dumb they are.
You need an opposing voice, because people who don't care to invest the time in researching the subject (and why should they), but care enough to have an opinion, may start to believe the falsehoods spread by the conspiracy buffs, over the established (or widely held) facts and theories.
PS It's "its" in that context, not "it's".
PPS Get back to work.
PPPS Please.
You need an opposing voice, because people who don't care to invest the time in researching the subject (and why should they), but care enough to have an opinion, may start to believe the falsehoods spread by the conspiracy buffs, over the established (or widely held) facts and theories.
PS It's "its" in that context, not "it's".
PPS Get back to work.
PPPS Please.
I don't think society needs a name-calling opposing voice to its narrative dissidents. Just point out where holocaust deniers are wrong on the facts. Holocaust deniers are more like the folks Nazi Germany imprisoned and killed for subversion than they are like the Nazi regime itself. They are questioning the official historical narrative promoted by (and serving) the most powerful elements in our society and in the world. Perhaps they are doing so incorrectly, but they are still in my opinion part of the canaries in the coalmine, proving the limits of free speech and free thought in our society. As such, at the least they should have a welcome place among our eccentrics, cranks, and nonconformists.
*yawn*
Questioning in itself is meaningless and achieves nothing. It's the difference between what you call "bravery" and I call "stupidity". You seem to think that we should condescend to these people, pat them on the head and say "aw, bless. At least they're questioning."
Knackers to that, frankly. And knackers to your wilful ignorance of the English language too.
Knackers to that, frankly. And knackers to your wilful ignorance of the English language too.
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
I'm with Big Les (well, except for the suit...).....
What a crock! Really! This is like arguing with the NAMBLA folks on whether to wear dark socks or light socks to their first date, and eliding the minor issue that they are a bunch of paedophiles. You absolutely raise the holocaust deniers about ten levels on the food chain and flatter them by merely accusing them of being "eccentrics, cranks, and nonconformists".
Yeah, the old saw applies.... "yada yada yada, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". But I'll also defend to the death my right to call a spade a spade. Holocaust deniers are, nearly to a man/woman, anti-semitic to an extreme. They have no desire to ease the burden on the poor German citizen who are getting the bad slant in the history books. They merely want to prove that Jews are evil and vile and control the world.
SwissSkeptic
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 390
You certainly have some "interesting" opinions, Dave.
I distrust folks who reserve their ire for proponents of the most marginal social beliefs far more than I distrust the folks that espouse them. For example, a future totalitarian regime in the United States is much more likely to begin by targeting NAMBLA members and Holocaust deniers than by targeting proponents of statutory rape laws and mainstream Holocaust historians.
We agree that thoughts and the expression of them shouldn't be a crime. But further, I think thoughts should be marginalized not by name calling, but by solid reasoning and empiricism. Rather than marginalize Holocaust skepticism by saying all holocaust skeptics "merely want to prove that jews are evil", I think it's more valuable to use solid reasoning and empiricism to marginalize these views. Otherwise it seems to me that the promotion of critical thought and enlightenment (rather than persuasian by ad hominems against non-power-aligned ideas) is one's greater enemy.
Indeed. I've commented on just how "Interesting" Dave is several times, with little response from either him or other posters. I was beginning to think I was imagining it. Aren't dual accounts somewhat frowned upon? Or am I coming over all "Orwellian"?
Anyhow, in principle I agree that we should engage the ignorant and misinformed re holocaust "questioning" with nothing but the hard facts and logical, reasonable argument. In practice, I say rip the piss without mercy; they deserve it.
There's a common "break point" that I think most sceptics reach when dealing with any BS, which is where every reasonable approach has been tried, every piece of evidence brought has been debunked (if not by oneself then by others/existing literature etc), and the deniers/CTs/psychics/whoever are simply blowing hot air. At that point, I call ridicule-free-for-all, and follow DeBunk's approach somewhat. It's fun for all the family. Well, more so than NAMBLA is, anyway.
Right. Ad hominems. Because someone has a different opinion than you. Bad form.
Big Less said:
I'm with you on the "in principle I agree that we should engage the ignorant and misinformed re holocaust "questioning" with nothing but the hard facts and logical, reasonable argument".
I'm not with you on the "rip the piss without mercy" and the "ridicule-free for-all". In my opinion, when directed at folks just for claiming belief in very unpopular ideas, that would be bullying targets just because they're unpopular enough that the general community will allow it.
grunion
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
- Messages
- 11,498
The ad hominems are decidedly not because "someone has a different opinion." The ad hominems are because they are lying hateful anti-semites who have no regard for truth, facts, or rules of logic when posing and countering arguments. So refuting their "arguments" with logic is entirely useless and a waste of energy (which is exactly their goal, to wear us out.) The most efficient way to refute hate is with derision, not with "logic."
Sure, let them have the right to march, distribute propaganda and troll Internet boards. But there's no need to raise their stature by engaging in reasoned discourse.
Last edited:
I'm a bit skeptical. It doesn't seem to me that folks decide "Wow, NAMBLA is in danger of persuading most Americans to legalize Man-Boy sex. After careful research, we've come to the only way to prevent this from becoming national policy is to deride it." Instead the reasoning seems to me to be more like "I want to pick a target and deride it. Who will it be- cancer researchers, widows and children of Iraq War veterans, or member of NAMBLA? Hmm, I'll probably get the most positive reaction if I pick members of NAMBLA to deride."
grunion
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
- Messages
- 11,498
I'm reminded of the scene in that Woody Allen movie (Annie Hall, I think) that went something like:
"The Nazis are marching in Skokie again, we oughta do something about that."
"Yes, let's go up there with guns, sticks and rocks."
"No, a biting satirical Op-Ed piece in the New York Times would be far more effective."
"No, with the Nazis I'd say guns, sticks and rocks are more effective."
That stuff used to amuse me, but now it comes off as cloying power-licking.
You're not sceptical, you're off your trolley. So what if some people that work against (or even just deride) NAMBLA (for example) have ulterior motives to do with ego and generally being bitter/resentful (or whatever their psychological problem may be). So what? It doesn't detract from the work that they do. It doesn't make their choice of target or approach less "right".
Your logic hasn't improved with your new username I see.
Last edited:
grunion
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
- Messages
- 11,498
Dave, I feel like it will be a waste of time to engage you on this but I really think it would behoove you to learn a bit more about the Holocaust and who the deniers are before getting holier-than-thou on the topic.
Mountains of evidence, photographs, eyewitness testimony of survivors, Nazis, and third party observers, physical evidence from the camps, forensic and soil analysis, and films, are available on the public record to anyone with an honest desire to investigate whether or not the Nazi Holocaust existed.
Deniers refute all this with claims of "skepticism," made-up evidence, and mutterings of a Jewish Conspiracy that has concocted it all. If you want to know their true motivation follow the money.
As the last of the Holocaust survivors enter their 80s and 90s, it is the hope of the deniers to plant enough seeds of doubt that when there are no more living witnesses to the atrocities their memories can be more easily discredited. They expect to generate the impression that any particular fact, or the fact of the Holocaust in general, is "controversial." A generation later, and the public will be undecided on whether such a thing ever really happened.
Calling it the fact of the Holocaust controversial, despite all of the proof, is a sham. It is a victory for the deniers.
The Holocaust is not "controversial." It is a fact.
Mountains of evidence, photographs, eyewitness testimony of survivors, Nazis, and third party observers, physical evidence from the camps, forensic and soil analysis, and films, are available on the public record to anyone with an honest desire to investigate whether or not the Nazi Holocaust existed.
Deniers refute all this with claims of "skepticism," made-up evidence, and mutterings of a Jewish Conspiracy that has concocted it all. If you want to know their true motivation follow the money.
As the last of the Holocaust survivors enter their 80s and 90s, it is the hope of the deniers to plant enough seeds of doubt that when there are no more living witnesses to the atrocities their memories can be more easily discredited. They expect to generate the impression that any particular fact, or the fact of the Holocaust in general, is "controversial." A generation later, and the public will be undecided on whether such a thing ever really happened.
Calling it the fact of the Holocaust controversial, despite all of the proof, is a sham. It is a victory for the deniers.
The Holocaust is not "controversial." It is a fact.
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
You do not dignify a holocaust denier with a reasoned discourse. That's their goal, to make it appear to onlookers (these are traditionally Union Square or Hyde Park streetcorner debates) that here we are, two nice intelligent folks discussing our differences on a truly mundane topic, the interpretation of some of the minor facts about that unfortunate happenstance back in the last century.
I will not have that civil conversation with Stalinists, Maoists, Pol Pot supporters, nor Holocaust Deniers. There is no justification for genocide, and there is no justification for anyone trying to say it didn't happen or that it wasn't so bad as it's portrayed.
I will ridicule them, belittle them, and call them whatever names pop into my head. Flat-Earthers are eccentrics. Some Tin-Foilers and Lizard People are idiosyncratic. Pyramid Power is silly and might be quaint. But Holocaust Deniers are toenail cheese!
I will not have that civil conversation with Stalinists, Maoists, Pol Pot supporters, nor Holocaust Deniers. There is no justification for genocide, and there is no justification for anyone trying to say it didn't happen or that it wasn't so bad as it's portrayed.
I will ridicule them, belittle them, and call them whatever names pop into my head. Flat-Earthers are eccentrics. Some Tin-Foilers and Lizard People are idiosyncratic. Pyramid Power is silly and might be quaint. But Holocaust Deniers are toenail cheese!
Do folks here deny that separate from the veracity of the Holocaust, it's used to manufacture heirarchy in today's society. The sense I get is that the primary purpose for promotion of the Holocaust narrative is to paint the anglosphere heroically.
I don't disagree that it's used politically, and even as an argument killer. I'm very wary of people being stifled on grounds of "anti-semitism", and think that parts of the Jewish lobby are deliberately over-sensitive so as to dodge issues unconnected to the holocaust itself. So what? Yours and my opinions on how others use the fact of the holocaust are irrelevant to the issue of whether or not we should criticise and/or ridicule those who question the veracity of the event.
You're throwing in a red herring; no-one here is suggesting that one cannot question those who use the fact of the holocaust for political advantage. It's the FACT ITSELF that should not be questioned, or rather, if it is, lays the "questioner" open to ridicule.
Get it?
You don't think it has something to do with umm, maybe representing actual events over lies?
Trying to teach subsequent generations about the horrors perpetrated by normal people "just following orders" when those orders are given by maniacs?
Are you saying historical revisionism is OK as long as it doesn't paint the "anglosphere" heroically?
I know history can be a matter of contention, but when you start to give credence to every hateful re-write of recent events you really are just being silly. I mean what next? Are we going to have to listen to people telling us that Argentina won in the Falklands, or that Slobodan Milosevic just wanted to sort out some immigration issues?