I’m confused. Are you suggesting that we would be acting differently if the possible unpleasant motivation were against black people, rather than Jews?
No, I just think most people here would question the motivations of a holocaust denier. I get that you don’t believe this to be warranted in the debate, or proper, but I doubt that is the prevailing view. I don’t think I’m alone in my reaction, in other words, and I’m surprised that you are essentially taking his side in this debate by trying to somehow vindicate the legitimacy of his ridiculous position.
And the reason why evil and stupid ideologies manage to gain footholds in society is that the people on the side of logic and reason quibble over little details of the structure of their arguments, whereas the “bad guys” never break ranks and present a unified front which eventually manages to push through. Divide and conquer.
Where am I vindicating his position? Where have I stated my own views as to what I think his motivation might be?
As to “taking his side”, one of the points of trying not to annoy an opponent is that they’re more likely to listen to you. If insinuations of anti-semitism are accurate, then well done, you have accurately understood that person, and all who read the thread will know your skill at reading motivation. But they still hold those views, and they’re not as likely to care what you say. Whereas if you keep those concerns to yourself, and debate based on the merits (or lack thereof) of his argument, you have a greater chance of actually changing their mind. Vindicating the actual argument you hold, convincing the other person, seems like a greater goal than vindicating one’s desire to be known as an accurate motivation-detector.
Thank you, by the way. Considering you all but called the OP an anti-semite, I can only assume that being accused of taking his side in turn i’m being slotted into this particular group as well. Ta.
I’m definitely not putting you in the same category as the OP. But what I’m trying to say is that by nitpicking with my reasoning - which I think is the same reasoning that most people would have, that people don’t try to deny the holocaust without an ulterior motive of being against the Jews in some way - you ultimately undermine the side of reason, no matter how strongly you believe you are doing the right thing by following the right form of “debate ettiquite.” Some people need to be called out, and that’s all there is to it. To then shoot down the person calling them out exposes the fact that our side is full of infighting and quibbling. Divide and conquer.
Don’t know about your dad, my dad had pictures he took and sent home not as trophies of some disgusting macabre sort but as a wake up call as how bad it had gotten.
I personally knew 3 people who had been in the camps [apparently my dad was responsible for helping them get into the country by having the family business offer them jobs] and I knew one man who was on the other side, and was sent to the eastern front for refusing camp duty.
Well, firstly, thanks for setting my mind at ease about that first point.
The problem with that is that I haven’t nitpicked with your reasoning. I haven’t questioned your belief that the OP is possibly anti-semitic; I haven’t asked for your reasons to believe he may well have that motivation, or what evidence you’re basing it on. I’m not telling you you’re necessarily incorrect to hold that belief. I haven’t said whether I agree with you or not. I’m not touching your reasoning behind it at all. What i’m saying is that, if you suggest someone is anti-semitic, don’t be surprised if they take offence, and don’t be surprised if they elect not to debate with you anymore. There’s a difference between thinking something and saying it.
What a stupid argument. I can’t think of anyone who’d be so concerned about this subject unless they were trying to hide their own anti-semitism.
I don’t really think that, i’ll hasten to add. We disagree, but I don’t actually think anything bad of your motivations (or think your arguments stupid). But, if you’re anything like me, if I read that comment directed at me I know i’d feel at least mildly annoyed. And i’d be less likely to treat the arguments of a person who’d write that with respect. Calling someone out most certainly isn’t all there is to it; there’s also the chance of actually convincing someone they might be wrong. Which is very much worthwhile on a subject like this, I think you’d agree.
I would say that shooting down the person calling them out exposes that not all people on the opposing side are going to call them unpleasant things. Considering that we’re not actually quibbling on the issues themselves, i’m pretty sure the united front on the actual arguments is still in place. We may well appear divided on the issue of how important calling someone out is, but hey, i’ll gladly give up what i’d see as something of comparitively little worth if it means a greater chance of actually convincing someone they’re wrong.
No, I beg to differ. some nazis were evil, the majority of them were common citizens who either bought into the ideology, or had to join the party to continue having a job [although kids were essentially forced into the boys and girls versions of the Hitler Youth and were indoctrinated that way] and not every citizen had anything whatsoever to do with the camps of either sort [yes there were work camps, death camps and prisoner of war camps - not all camps were death camps]
Think of it like the fabulous 50s here in the US … sign that loyalty oath, walk in lockstep and you won’t be persecuted as a communist. Any variance and you may get blacklisted, find it impossible to get a job or rent an apartment.
National Socialism wasnt at fault, it started out as a reaction to the treaty signed at Versailles that was seriously purgatorial to the Germans. It got derailed by the personal issues of Hitler and his cadre of staffers. Once this group got power, it was a trainride to hell that the population could not control.
Not that I agree with how things happened, I am not a nazi, or socialist [or even a democrat or republican for that matter] I just prefer historical accuracy without the scaremongering. The germans that he came into contact with were just ordinary joes [he spoke german, the family had a german servant they had brought over to take care of he and his brothers so he had a less violent view of germans than someone who only had combat contact] that were farmers [he went out with the forraging parties] and soldiers who were just interested in surrendering [I have 2 sidearms that he *liberated* from a couple of them]
Maybe some people like our OP here can eventually be convinced that they’re wrong. But generally I think they will refuse to change their views no matter what, and furthermore, that they (wisely) adhere to the strategy set in place by the original Nazi propagandist - you tell a lie enough, and eventually people will believe it’s the truth. This strategy is so effective, and the reason why it succeeds so often, unfortunately, is that good and reasonable people are unwilling to compromise their integrity by lying.
In so many areas of life, non-stop dogged perseverance gets people further than skill, and an axe will indeed be more effective than a scalpel.
Your logic doesn’t hold. If only sometimes people will change their minds, then that’s still no reason not to attempt it, just less chance that it will work. Whereas you’ve not given a reason what the benefits of calling someone out are, really. Beyond that, it would seem to make sense to me that if you do call people out as you see them, then it would seem very much like few people will be convinced.
So far as that particular Nazi propagandist goes, I thought the strategy wasn’t simply to repeat the lie, but to repeat a* big* lie; it can’t just be drummed into their heads, but it has to be such a huge lie that it makes people think you wouldn’t possibly lie about it. But that* is* nitpicking. 
And in practically all areas of life, if you impugn someone’s motives harshly, then they’re not going to want to talk to you anymore. Especially if you stick doggedly to it. I think this is one particular area where your analogy doesn’t work; I think arguments plus accusation of potential anti-semitism are going to get worse results than just the arguments.
Without reading any of the thread or the OP: “No.”
If you’re arguing against the “main fact” that six million Jews were murdered, you may as well argue that the Sun does’t rise in the East. That is simple fact; about six million Jews who were alive in 1939 had died as the result of the actions of Germany by 1945.
No “official Holocaust historians” - there is no such thing, really - say anything of the sort. Either you or someone else is just making that up.
This is a perfect example of what I’m saying when I point out that “Revisionists” cheryy-pick and invent facts to refute that aren’t relevant. No serious historian says all six million Jews were killed with Zyklon-B. Not one real historian. Not a single one, ever, anywhere. Only an ignoramus would claim that. So to “refute” that “fact” is to refute nothing at all. Everyone who knows more about the Holocaust than you saw in “Life is Beautiful” knows that quite a great many Jews were shot, beaten to death, starved to death, gassed with CO, and murdered in a wide and horrifying variety of other ways. Even the frickin’ Wikipedia article notes that formal death camps probably killed fewer than half of the total number of Holocaust victims.
In other words you were hoping everyone would just help with the pile on thoughtlessly, like so many sheep, instead of anyone speaking up and saying “hey let’s give the guy a chance and talk about the facts”. You know who *else *liked that sort of mob behaviour, right?
And as for “taking his side in the debate” you know else liked “if you are not with us you are against us” reasoning, right?
You didn’t engage in reasoning and you provided no facts. You just attacked motivations. You seem to think this is some minor debating quibble. It isn’t. You *lost *the debate the moment you started on the motivational attack. You not only lost it, you started working for the opposition.
It is Applied Psych 101 that the greater the level of education and literacy of your audience, the less demogogical techniques will work, and the more one needs to present facts and reasoning. This isn’t Fox News. We are not the lowest common denominator. Ad homs and motivational attacks are beneath us or should be. Go apply your techniques to some great mob in a square somewhere. You know who else did that, right?
Did I only talk about the victims? Did I confine myself to the time period immediately following WWII? Why are you talking about a very small segment of all the people and a very small segment of time, when I didn’t do that?
Princhester, Revenant Threshold, excellent posts! I can’t add much. I’ll just point out that questioning aspects of the Holocaust is fair, if you have the interest. The same way people still look into every little decision and fact concerning the Civil War. Is some of what is currently accepted as fact about the holocaust wrong? I’d bet any money on it. But so what? it matters not a wit to the big picture. Now, I don’t think everyone who questions some aspect of the holocaust is a “holocaust denier”. And trying to put everyone in that same box demonstrates an unwillingness to straighten out those facts we might have wrong. I must admit I have a hard time comprehending how someone, given the enormous weight of evidence that we have, could possibly hold the position that the holocaust didn’t happen. It’s like saying the sixties didn’t happen. The fact that Woodstock was actually held in Bethel, rather than Woodstock is interesting, but doesn’t change anything.
What would happen if some minor details about the Civil War turned out to be wrong? Aside from making a few corrections in history books, what would we do and what major impact would it have?
It’s the ultimate in dead-horse beating.
Then I have to dispute your claim that you are open-minded. There’s simply no way anyone could look at the evidence and then form the conclusion that the holocaust didn’t happen. To do that, a person has to either deliberately ignore the overwhelming majority of the evidence or be willing to let somebody else spoonfeed them biased evidence.
Ignorance can be fixed. Willful ignorance cannot.
There’s a lot of anti-revisionist info and arguments at www.nizkor.org. I don’t know if any of it addresses your specific concerns, human_extinction, but it’s worth reading it to find out
You are free to take up this question in private correspondence with human_extinction or to take it up in the BBQ Pit.
It is absolutely irrelevant to this thread and that discussion has now ended in this thread.
[ /Moderating ]
OK, if it’s irrelevant, it’s irrelevant. So I won’t talk about it anymore. But why the “moderating” tag then? I thought the function of a moderator is to enforce the rules of the forum, and to warn people when they are breaking these specific rules. Nothing that I did broke any of the rules. I wasn’t aware that moderators could make up rules on the spot for how the discussion in a thread is supposed to go. If you want to make a suggestion as to how I should act in the thread, then do so. But using the official power of that moderator tag to turn the suggestion into a command, even though I was not violating any of the forum’s rules, is what it seems like you are doing.