How do I best argue with a holocaust denier :mad:? I need online references, can someone direct me to the best sites to link to and quote from?
See Jeff Abramowitz, Surfing the Net: How to answer Holocaust deniers, The Jerusalem Post Internet ed., 11 May 1997; Documents Relating to the Holocaust, War Crimes and Genocide; North Harris College Learning Resource Center, Holocaust Internet Sites; United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Generally, you don’t. DNFTT: DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!
If you feel you must reply, post a link to a FAQ (like one of the above, in fact) and move on. They tend to leave once they run out of targets to fling shit at.
I disagree, “fighting ignorance” and all that, so long as they are prepared to behave politely and put their case rationally.
I like this site : The Holocaust: 66 Questions and Answers, as it contains rebuttals to specific “denier” arguments.
Cart, Holocaust deniers AREN’T prepared to put their case rationally. That’s the entire point. The denial of reality is inherently irrational. Holocaust deniers didn’t get to believe what they do through rational inquiry.
Winston, if you argue with a Holocaust denier, you are wasting your time. Direct them to www.nizkor.org and walk away. Don’t wrestle with a pig, you’ll just get muddy.
I couldn’t disagree more. Not engaging this misguided person will only lead him to believe that his position is even stronger. Look to the bible, my friend:
There is always a clear answer in that book. Consider for example:
Clearly you should not engage him, you’ll only make yourself look foolish as well. Let him wallow in his own folly. The bible could not be more clear on this.
The Bible wasn’t invented in the age of Usenet trolls and jerks able to post crap just to get a response from the safety of their hellholes. DNFTT is a defense mechanism online fora have developed because of those facts: You can’t effectively stop someone from crapping in your domain, so you strive to make it less profitable for them to do so.
It relates to a different religion/philosophy: Taoism. In Taoism, the weaker overpowers the stronger by not resisting: weiwu wei, in other words, or the principle of least action. The classic example is water, the weakest of all natural forces, wearing down the stone, the hardest, through constant gentle pressure. In the Usenet realm, the least action is silence or the simple posting of a FAQ. By not fighting the troll, your passivity wears down his rage. Frustrated, the malignant troll leaves.
Posting a FAQ is, I think, the correct compromise between fighting ignorance and not feeding the trolls: A FAQ isn’t a direct response to the idiot, but it will enlighten anyone looking on. And if the person is not a troll, maybe the FAQ will be the starting point for intelligent discourse.
What Holocaust ?
Perhaps ridicule is the best way to fight revisionism:
Thanks for the good links. The Nizkor Project is excellent.
As the proud proprietor of a number of unusual and unpopular opinions, I’ll give any man, even a nazi sympathizer, a fair chance to explain himself.
Been looking for a fitting place to put this one, I think this will do: ;j
A slight variation on the Pig rule RickJay quoted; Never wrestle a pig; you’ll get dirty and the pig will enjoy it. The last part of that is the key. Both pigs, the one in the rule I just quoted and the one the OP mentioned, get something out of the contest. You don’t.
Hey, js_africanus, you forgot one:
So if it’s which god to worship that somebody is musguided about, you should not only answer him according to his own folly and not answer him accodring to his own folly at the same time, you should also throw rocks at him 'til he dies. (Then answer him according to his own folly. Or not.)
to quote homer simpson (when hes high)
“OH MY GOD WE HAVE A KITCHEN!?!!”
That site is hilarious. “The Moon is a Propoganda Hoax” is the funniest thing I have seen in weeks.
Oh, regarding the OP, “Why People Believe Weird Things” has a chapter on Holocoust denial, IIRC.
Before I knew who the Mad Revisionist was all about, I ran across him on Usenet and tried to argue with him that the moon existed. He put it up on his website:
I found that Shermer’s “Why people believe strange things” is a useful starting point.
I think this site is pretty good, as absolutely every cite in the essays sction is referenced and it contains scanned or typed reproductions of documents relating to the holocaust.
Also contains masses of information directly refuting revisionist versions.
You might find some ideas in an outstanding book called Lying About Hitler by Richard Evans. It is a fascinating story of an English libel suit brought by Holocaust denier David Irving. Another historian said some disparaging things about Irving and his scholarship (or lack thereof) in determining the “truth” about the Holocaust. Irving sued, and was basically destroyed on the witness stand. He lost, and was assessed a huge fee to cover the defense’s court costs. Unfortunately, after the trial he went right ahead with his bullshit.
But there is a great deal of information about how to analyse historical data and evaluate its worth. And about academic standards useful in determining the credibility of historian’s claims.
Okay, my first post was a joke at the fact that answering fools is both forbidden and required by back-to-back verses in the bible. But this post made me think of somethings. First, in alot of countries, esp. in Europe, questioning the veracity of extant holocaust evidence as well as offering counter evidence is a jailable offense. Second, ridiculous conspiracy theories abound from JFK to Bush wanting Iraqi oil to chem trails. But some people really believe these things. I must admit that I tend to feel that the benefit of the doubt lies with the would-be troll. Offer a piece of strong evidence and see how it is taken. If it is treated like a certain person I shall not name treats evidence, i.e. ignored or blown-off or countered with a vacuous cite, try again and agian. Then give up. This seems most cost effective. You don’t have to delve into the whole argument. Just find out if the person is reasonable on a few specific pieces of info. If so, continue. It’s not like you’re taking on all comers, crank or not. At the same time, you are being sincerely civil and polite, and taking the time to help someone who may be sincerely misguided.
I haven’t looked at most the cites offered. Shermer’s book is clear that “holocaust denial” is an inaccurate term. The deniers tend to claim three things: 1. It was not planned before hand and was last ditch (or something like that). 2. The numbers affected were about an order of maginitude smaller than generally accepted. 3. I can’t recall (sorry). Anyway (assuming you’re not dealing with a troll), you should outline your arguments on what he/she is arguing. So listen to her first. Take time to write down and clearly present her arguments to yourself. Then you can go through and hit each element–each piece of evidence and each logical link–in turn.