• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is the Univ. of Wisconsin strong enought to face ad ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yet another in a long line of derivative holocaust deniers is all butthurt because someone dared to call him on his lies and Nazi apologetics. Cry me a bleedin' river.
 
Personally, I think this is my favourite quote regarding that aspect of the Nazis.

The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.
Click to expand...

Nazis, always happy to dish it out, but whine endlessly if you dare raise an objection.
 
No, no, no. The ad was placed and the editor and the students had their say. The ad was also linked to the deniers website. But this concept that because an editor wrote a 1200 word response (as if that is a lot) that we need to give equal time to the denier. If a university paper or any paper for that matter were forced give equal time to every half baked theory than the paper would be called Abovetopsecret.

And the reason why you never see a cogent argument thatthe Holocaust was a hoax is because cogent arguments that the Holocaust was a hoax simply don't exist.
 
Freedom of speech also guarantees that people who disagree with your utterances are allowed to have their say at whatever length they want to. It's not a one way street.
 
The issue with Smith's campaign is not really freedom of speech.

The real issue is what is the purpose of the university.

The editor's response to the ad is completely antithetical to the idea of dispassionate inquiry. There are serious academics who think that the holocaust is a hoax, and several of them are in jail right now for expressing just that opinion. One is at Northwestern Univ.

THINK ABOUT THAT, PEOPLE ARE BEING JAILED FOR QUESTIONING THE HOLOCAUST.

Take the example of David Irving, arguably the best historian writing on Hitler and one of the most thorough investigators of WW II. He was put in jail for giving a speech. Now when he schedules a lecture is has to be by invitation only, with the location announced at the last minute by phone, to prevent disruption. And, that's in the US.

That is a free speech issue for sure.

And yet, the university does everything it can to squash any rational discussion of Irving, or any other scholar who questions the standard holocaust account.

Something is really rotten in Denmark.

The holocaust is one of the most contentious issues of our time, and the University is running from it as fast as it can. Every university, without exception.

The editor makes the point that the university is not running from the 9/11 truthers. Or, for that matter, anyone else. Just the holocaust deniers. And we know who is behind the efforts to suppress any questioning of the holocaust, it's no mystery, the ADL writes about it openly on it's website.

Wake up ! Demand that the university invite David Irving (released from prison) or Ernst Zundel (when he's released from prison), or Germar Rudolf (just released from prison), to give a lecture on campus. If the powers that be are so convinced that what these men are saying is nonsense, why are they so scared of it?
 
The Holocaust isn't contentious in the rational world. There's reality and then there's crackpottery -- Holocaust denial. It's not even a contest.

The academic departments within the university don't have to devote a scintilla of attention to crackpottery. Not the pursuit of bigfoot, not Reiki healing, nor whatever. But then we're talking about a newspaper here, not university academics. It's a whole different thing.
 
Saggy said:
The issue with Smith's campaign is not really freedom of speech.

The real issue is what is the purpose of the university.
Click to expand...

I would say that the goal posts have been moved, but this really isn't a free speech issue in the first place.

The editor's response to the ad is completely antithetical to the idea of dispassionate inquiry.
Click to expand...

How so? Dispassionate inquiry doesn't mean that one must remain forever neutral, especially on matters of historical fact. I do not accept the Holocaust as true because the ADL tells me too, but because I find the evidence for it; that and the deniers do not make a convincing argument why the evidence should be disregarded. This is also why I deny such ideas as astrology, creationism, and abstinence only education.

There are serious academics who think that the holocaust is a hoax, and several of them are in jail right now for expressing just that opinion. One is at Northwestern Univ.
Click to expand...

There are "serious" "academics" who think that the pyramids were built through psychic powers. There are "serious" "academics" who believe that the whole world was a matriarchal utopia before the evil men took over.

THINK ABOUT THAT, PEOPLE ARE BEING JAILED FOR QUESTIONING THE HOLOCAUST.
Click to expand...

Off topic...this is about free speech...um...academic inquiry.

Take the example of David Irving, arguably the best historian writing on Hitler and one of the most thorough investigators of WW II. He was put in jail for giving a speech. Now when he schedules a lecture is has to be by invitation only, with the location announced at the last minute by phone, to prevent disruption. And, that's in the US.
Click to expand...

There is more than enough criticism of Irving to call into question his status as "the best historian writing on Hitler", but again that is a subject for a different thread.

That is a free speech issue for sure.
Click to expand...

Wait? I thought this was about dispassionate inquiry in academia?

Well it doesn't matter, because it is neither.

And yet, the university does everything it can to squash any rational discussion of Irving, or any other scholar who questions the standard holocaust account.

Something is really rotten in Denmark.

The holocaust is one of the most contentious issues of our time, and the University is running from it as fast as it can. Every university, without exception.
Click to expand...

More of the off topic attempt to debate the Holocaust, which is not the discussion at hand.

The editor makes the point that the university is not running from the 9/11 truthers. Or, for that matter, anyone else.
Click to expand...

Actually there is no mention of 9/11 truthers, or Nibiru believers, or moon hoaxers or whatever because they didn't place an ad. Not being the one to place the ad no one focused on them, because that would be sort of off topic. I would be a little weird if I couldn't criticize an idea without listing every other idea.

Just the holocaust deniers.
Click to expand...

Well...it was a Holocaust denier who placed the ad. So it would be weird if the editor went after the Breatharians.

And we know who is behind the efforts to suppress any questioning of the holocaust, it's no mystery, the ADL writes about it openly on it's website.
Click to expand...

Uh huh, well the CT subforum is that way----> Or make another thread specific to the ADL, but we are not discussing the ADL.

Wake up ! Demand that the university invite David Irving (released from prison) or Ernst Zundel (when he's released from prison), or Germar Rudolf (just released from prison), to give a lecture on campus. If the powers that be are so convinced that what these men are saying is nonsense, why are they so scared of it?
Click to expand...

Yes...and every other crackpot right? Equal time doesn't mean handing out school money to every single crackpot movement that comes along. You have to draw a line somewhere before I give my lecture on turning Ramen into gold.
 
Last edited:
Saggy said:
The editor's response to the ad is completely antithetical to the idea of dispassionate inquiry. There are serious academics who think that the holocaust is a hoax, and several of them are in jail right now for expressing just that opinion. One is at Northwestern Univ.
Click to expand...

It's an editorial.

Wake up ! Demand that the university invite David Irving (released from prison) or Ernst Zundel (when he's released from prison), or Germar Rudolf (just released from prison), to give a lecture on campus. If the powers that be are so convinced that what these men are saying is nonsense, why are they so scared of it?
Click to expand...

haha I'm not going to demand that. I've done some mean things in my time to amuse myself, but fooling somebody into sitting through a long lecture on Holocaust denial is just wrong.
 
Funnily enough, the University I currently attend has a Third Year course on the Third Reich. I have no doubt that the Holocaust will be involved in that, and we'll have a rational discussion about it. Mainly over the actual questions around the Holocaust. You know, Functionalism vs Intentionalism. Surprisingly enough, Universities should devote their time to actual research and debate, not crack pottery. Especially not crack pottery with the intent of rehabilitating national socialism.

As for Irving, you do realise no one's taken him seriously since Irving vs Penguin Books and Lipstadt, right?
 
hgc said:
The Holocaust isn't contentious in the rational world.
Click to expand...

You are missing what is right in front of you. I'll make it even clearer.

Suppose the holocaust were not contentious. Then, the editor would have placed the ad and that would have been that. Student's would have read the ad, and pursued the matter at the link provided, or not. End of story.

But that's not what happened. The editor placed the ad and a firestorm of criticism engulfed him. So, contention appeared immediately with the placement of the ad. The editor felt it necessary to consult an oracle, Deborah Lipstadt, to find out the correct approach to holocaust denial. He searched his soul to find the correct response, and what was the result?

The editor could have written something to the effect that he had weighed the matter and that since the ad did not rise to the level of inciting action, he had placed the ad. His conduct would have been admirable and not contentious.

Or, he could have written an editorial that calmly and objectively laid out the facts that make it clear to any rational person that the standard version of the holocaust is correct, and noted that he placed the ad in the interest of free speech/press. Again, his conduct would have been admirable and not contentious.

Instead he launched into an absurd diatribe against Smith and everything he imagines that Smith represents. That's more contention, if you didn't know it. That's but a small example of the extraordinary contention that accompanies any questioning the holocaust whatever.

In many countries, including Canada and Australia, and as we've seen Hungary, it is so contentious that you'll get thrown in jail if you question the holocaust.
 
Last edited:
Saggy said:
In many countries, including Canada and Australia, and as we've seen Hungary, it is so contentious that you'll get thrown in jail if you question the holocaust.
Click to expand...
Last I checked Wisconsin was in fact inside the United States. In fact, I just spent several days there and crossed the border without having to show a passport.
 
Justice Brandeis wrote that sunlight is the best disinfectant. While the editor of the paper would not be violating the constitution by refusing the ad, I agree with his decision to publish it and say, "Hey everyone, let this jerk know what you think about his nonsense."

It is important that we never forget that people like this are out there, and that rather than try to limit their exposure, we should expose them as what they are for all to see. There is no more effective weapon against the Klan, for example, than allowing them to march in public.
 
Saggy said:
The editor could have written something to the effect that he had weighed the matter . . yadda yadda yadda

Or, he could have written an editorial that calmly and objectively laid out the facts . . .yadda yadda yadda

Instead he launched into an absurd diatribe against Smith and everything he imagines that Smith represents. . . yadda yadda yadda
Click to expand...


As dirtywick pointed out to you, it's an EDITORIAL.
 
Howie Felterbush said:
Since that question has been raised, I’ve poured over the arguments for and against.
Click to expand...

Must not be an English major...
Click to expand...


Unless he found the article intensely arousing...
 
Saggy said:
Suppose the holocaust were not contentious. Then, the editor would have placed the ad and that would have been that. Student's would have read the ad, and pursued the matter at the link provided, or not.
Click to expand...

Really? Do you have an example of a tragedy that you believe to be not contentious? Say, one of the forcible relocations of an American Indian group? Or some specific set of events involving a totalitarian regime?
Assuming you have such an example, do you really believe that if someone posted an ad claiming the event never occurred, that there would be no denunciation or backlash?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom