March Stundie Award Finals (2013 edition)

[Natan]

Damn it, I forgot to press 6 when voting. That Auschwitz one is frighteningly dumb.

If factually correct is dumb, I must be the stupidest SOB on this forum.

 

[Horatius]

If factually correct is dumb, I must be the stupidest SOB on this forum.

You do realize it's not your facts we're laughing at, right? Right?

 

[Natan]

I do realize that. The posted snippet itself is merely an excuse, by itself there is nothing wrong with it.

 

[Spindrift]

I do realize that. The posted snippet itself is merely an excuse, by itself there is nothing wrong with it.

Being factually correct doesn't preclude a statement from being incredibly stupid.

 

[Horatius]

I do realize that. The posted snippet itself is merely an excuse, by itself there is nothing wrong with it.

You're absolutely right. If we ignore the historical context of the Holocaust, there's nothing wrong with it.

It's that whole "ignoring the Holocaust" thing that you seem to consider to be acceptable that we're laughing at. More particularly, your apparent expectation that we should be letting you get away with ignoring the Holocaust.

 

[Natan]

It's that whole "ignoring the Holocaust" thing that you seem to consider to be acceptable that we're laughing at. More particularly, your apparent expectation that we should be letting you get away with ignoring the Holocaust.

Just what I was waiting for. There was nothing wrong with the statement but here we have the first admission the Stundies are about settling personal vendettas with posters based on their views. The obvious which Travis will deny. Thank you.

 

[Horatius]

Just what I was waiting for. There was nothing wrong with the statement but here we have the first admission the Stundies are about settling personal vendettas with posters based on their views. The obvious which Travis will deny. Thank you.

And what "personal vendetta" do you imagine it is that I have against you?

 

[Spindrift]

Just what I was waiting for. There was nothing wrong with the statement but here we have the first admission the Stundies are about settling personal vendettas with posters based on their views. The obvious which Travis will deny. Thank you.

But there is something wrong with the statement, it is implied by you that you are ignoring the Holocaust. So while your statement, in and of itself, is factually correct, in context it is patently ludicrous. Which makes it definitely Stundilicious!

 

[StankApe]

Yeah, it's akin to saying "well we may have stranded those people naked in Antarctica, but at least they will have a nice tan!"

 

[Dog Town]

There was nothing wrong with the statement but here we have the first admission the Stundies are about settling personal vendettas with posters based on their views.

Nope!
Swing...and a miss!

 

[Natan]

But there is something wrong with the statement, it is implied by you that you are ignoring the Holocaust. So while your statement, in and of itself, is factually correct, in context it is patently ludicrous. Which makes it definitely Stundilicious!

More particularly, your apparent expectation that we should be letting you get away with ignoring the Holocaust.

If you both had bothered to read the full post and the thread for more context, you'd notice that I had SPECIFICALLY written it as such that I would for once NOT come across as ignoring the claims in Auschwitz people were systematically gassed:

If I had said Auschwitz period than this particular fellow Belgian poster (and some others) would have played the "in Auschwitz they systematically gassed inmates and in American camps for German POWs they at least didn't" card, as if that somehow invalidates the argument that in least in Auschwitz with all the malnourishment they at least had a roof over their head.

This makes both your claims utterly ridiculous and proof that an excerpt from one thread is used incorrectly to put me on the pillory for my postings in the Holocaust thread.

You are both patent LIARS should you keep insisting that the part of my statement that people were systematically gassed in Auschwitz is "ignoring the Holocaust".

 

[Natan]

Yeah, it's akin to saying "well we may have stranded those people naked in Antarctica, but at least they will have a nice tan!"

If that's how you interpret it, it is utter stupidity indeed. Not sure on whose part.

 

[jargon buster]

I couldn't decide, but after reading the last few posts Im going with number 6.

 

[thedopefishlives]

I couldn't decide, but after reading the last few posts Im going with number 6.

Indeed, after that exchange it appears to have enjoyed a surge in popularity. I'm still astounded by how close the race still is this far into the voting. This was truly a Stundielicious month.

 

[Natan]

I couldn't decide, but after reading the last few posts Im going with number 6.

I'm bent on winning it. It should demonstrate the utter moral corruptness on the thread, thread originator and plenty of its voters. 6 is increasing as we speak and has reached a shared number one place.

 

[Nick Terry]

I'm bent on winning it. It should demonstrate the utter moral corruptness on the thread, thread originator and plenty of its voters. 6 is increasing as we speak and has reached a shared number one place.

Sorry, no. The Stundielicious part is this:

that in least in Auschwitz with all the malnourishment they at least had a roof over their head.

as StankApe said, this is akin to saying "well we may have stranded those people naked in Antarctica, but at least they will have a nice tan!"

Go number six!

 

[Horatius]

would have played the "in Auschwitz they systematically gassed inmates and in American camps for German POWs they at least didn't" card, as if that somehow invalidates the argument that in least in Auschwitz with all the malnourishment they at least had a roof over their head.

Yeah, you're not really helping yourself here. An argument "somehow invalidates" the distinction between planned genocide, and some people living in tents? You really don't understand why people might disagree with your attempts to create moral equivalence between planned genocide, and discomfort, and you think you have the moral high ground.

That's Stundielicious, if anything is.

Of course, none of us expect you to understand that. It's one of the fundamental cognitive flaws that leads people into Stundie Territory.

 

[Natan]

You really don't understand why people might disagree with your attempts to create moral equivalence between planned genocide, and discomfort, and you think you have the moral high ground.

You really don't understand I had SPECIFICALLY tried to make a distinction between the death camp part and the work camp part, in order to AVOID coming across as creating a moral equivalence between planned genocide and discomfort? Even Nick will tell you Auschwitz served as both. But that's what happens when you use quotes out of context.

 

[Horatius]

You really don't understand I had SPECIFICALLY tried to make a distinction between the death camp part and the work camp part, in order to AVOID coming across as creating a moral equivalence between planned genocide and discomfort? Even Nick will tell you Auschwitz served as both. But that's what happens when you use quotes out of context.

So, tell us Nick: Was the "work camp part" a part of the planned genocide of the Holocaust, or not?

 

[Nick Terry]

So, tell us Nick: Was the "work camp part" a part of the planned genocide of the Holocaust, or not?

For Jews, yes, but that is beside the point for the Stundieliciousness of the statement, whether we're looking at the entire nomination or the most ridiculous part of it.

Let's look one more time at the Stundie:

If I had said Auschwitz period than this particular fellow Belgian poster (and some others) would have played the "in Auschwitz they systematically gassed inmates and in American camps for German POWs they at least didn't" card, as if that somehow invalidates the argument that in least in Auschwitz with all the malnourishment they at least had a roof over their head

The first part has the nominee objecting to an obvious comparison, whereby in Auschwitz they gassed inmated whereas in POW camps for US soldiers they didn't.

This comparison is then meant to 'somehow' invalidate the following argument:

"at least in Auschwitz with all the malnourishment they at least had a roof over their heads"

So the nominee was advancing the argument that

"at least in Auschwitz with all the malnourishment they at least had a roof over their heads"

1. This argument is hilariously inappropriate no matter who might be discussed: one can say at least in the GULag with all the malnourishment they at least had a roof over their heads, or whatever other comparison you care to make, and it would still be eye-poppingly stupid.

In a work camp then inmates spend most of their time outside in whatever weather conditions exist, and so don't have a roof over their heads in all too many cases, which tends to kill them in conjunction with malnourishment. Had the nominee said 'at least in Schindler's factory camp despite the malnourishment they at least had a roof over their heads' then things would be different since he'd have been discussing prisoners under shelter, and he'd have made a true statement.

2. The comparison between gassing at Auschwitz and POW camps cannot, under any circumstances, be invalidated by this argument. We've got a classic breakdown of logic here. If we charitably note that the nominee is a Holocaust denier then this was one of the most hilariously inept attempts at denying the Holocaust since Friedrich Paul Berg's 'breath holding' Stundie. If we don't take the nominee's denial into account, it's just as nuts. Whether the nominee is a Holocaust denier or not the entire nomination remains utterly incomprehensible. That's what makes a good Stundie.