Holocaust denial

[Flying Pig]

To clarify, what I posted doesn't mean that Sommerswerd 'endorsed' doing that. It means that Sommerswerd was raising that it is an issue, and that people beyond CFC care about it. What he posted was exactly the opposite of an endorsement.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Sommerswerd likes this.

That was FPs interpretation of your "point" and you liked it... But now you find it disgusting, a flagrant lie, a straw man. And now you're telling us your point went over my head? You wont even explain your point. Thats why FP and others were trying to figure out what you meant. So which is it, you agree with FPs interpretation or you reject it? You've taken both positions so far...

As FP explains above, you're wrong... once again. FP wasnt "trying to figure out what i meant" he understood what i meant. Pretty much everyone understood what i meant except you. Do you see that now?

And The reason you don't get it, won't get it, refuse to get it, is because you are still smarting over the roasting you got in the Zimmerman argument. It's burning you up inside and you can't let it go... so you're desperately trying to make this discussion about that, so you can relitigate it.

Also, this bolded word...

But now you find it disgusting

is a straw man, and/or hyperbole... take your pick... which is ironic and hypocritical given your earlier attempt to distinguish Tim and I by stating that while I straw man by "parsing three words", Tim parses AND adds in stuff that wasn't even said... which is exactly what you just did... EDIT: Ah here it is... you accused him of "fabricating"... I thought as much but I didn't want to misquote you:

You fabricated a ridiculous quote and attributed it to me, thats a straw man. Well, its even worse, Sommers likes to play with straw too but he limits himself to editing his straw man, you just make up quotes.

So now you can accuse yourself of fabricating.

Anyway...moving past the tangent and getting back on topic...Spicy apologizes:

 

[Lexicus]

Anyway...moving past the tangent and getting back on topic...Spicy apologizes:

I don't know quite what to think about all this anymore. Tim's been filling my head with dangerous ideas. Now I think this may well have been an intentional anti-Semitic dog whistle.

 

[red_elk]

Maybe we should make #spicy meme, in addition to #salty.

 

[Lexicus]

Maybe we should make #spicy meme, in addition to #salty.

I think that's been done.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I don't know quite what to think about all this anymore. Tim's been filling my head with dangerous ideas. Now I think this may well have been an intentional anti-Semitic dog whistle.

For me this illustrates the principle that holocaust denial does not necessarily require intent. If you "forget" about the holocaust, or ignore it, or speak about things in a way that implies that the holocaust didn't happen... that's holocaust denial... and the best way to address it is to immediately say "Ooops my bad, I was wrong/stupid/careless to forget about the holocaust"... and quickly move on. Trying to explain, justify, defend, or contextualize your remarks just makes it worse.

 

[AmtrakQuebec]

Yeah, I'm tired... I'm so tired... Tired of people who make slimy accusations and run away. Tired of the people who take their side because they like the people making the slimy accusations more than the people they're sliming. Tired of people who constantly create straw men, tired of the dishonesty, tired of the trolls, and tired of the hypocrisy, yeah, I'm tired.

I expect people to back up their accusations, if that bothers you, the problem is on your end.

... me too

 

[Ryika]

For me this illustrates the principle that holocaust denial does not necessarily require intent. If you "forget" about the holocaust, or ignore it, or speak about things in a way that implies that the holocaust didn't happen... that's holocaust denial... and the best way to address it is to immediately say "Ooops my bad, I was wrong/stupid/careless to forget about the holocaust"... and quickly move on. Trying to explain, justify, defend, or contextualize your remarks just makes it worse.

Now things are starting to become ridiculous...

 

[Sommerswerd]

Now things are starting to become ridiculous...

What's "ridiculous"? My interpretation of what "holocaust denial" encompasses? As in you disagree with how I think the phrase is applied? Or are you saying that you simply disagree with people applying it this way, ie "denial" should be restricted to its dictionary definition and not include unintentional forgetting, glossing over, etc.?

 

[civver_764]

For me this illustrates the principle that holocaust denial does not necessarily require intent. If you "forget" about the holocaust, or ignore it, or speak about things in a way that implies that the holocaust didn't happen... that's holocaust denial... and the best way to address it is to immediately say "Ooops my bad, I was wrong/stupid/careless to forget about the holocaust"... and quickly move on. Trying to explain, justify, defend, or contextualize your remarks just makes it worse.

Clearly all he did was misspeak, that's the only thing he's guilty of. To accuse him of holocaust denial is to downplay what holocaust denial actually is.

 

[Ryika]

What's "ridiculous"? My interpretation of what "holocaust denial" encompasses? As in you disagree with how I think the phrase is applied? Or are you saying that you simply disagree with people applying it this way, ie "denial" should be restricted to its dictionary definition and not include unintentional forgetting, glossing over, etc.?

Well yeah, what is packaged under "holocaust denial" is not what people commonly see as "holocaust denial", and by still applying these words to somebody, you're doing two things: You spread information that is not true, because people will not understand how you're using the word. And you're diminishing the meaning of the word.

I guess we could create a new concept for what you're accusing him off, let's call it.. 'Fake obliviousness about the details of the Holocaust'?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Well yeah, what is packaged under "holocaust denial" is not what people commonly see as "holocaust denial", and by still applying these words to somebody, you're doing two things: You spread information that is not true, because people will not understand how you're using the word. And you're diminishing the meaning of the word.

I guess we could create a new concept for what you're accusing him off, let's call it.. 'Fake obliviousness about the details of the Holocaust'?

Keep in mind that I am telling you what I think the people accusing Spicy mean when they say "holocaust denial." I acknowledge that you (and many others) do not embrace their definition of holocaust denial. You have your own definition that you prefer. But they (the people accusing Spicy) do not embrace your definition. They have their own definition that they embrace. What I am doing is explaining to you what their definition is so that we aren't talking past each other... precisely to avoid you "not understanding how I'm using the word"... What you seem to be doing is ignoring my explanation and claiming that the definition confuses you. You shouldn't be confused at this point because I've explained it to you like three times, right?

So, again... are you trying to convince me that they (The Anne Frank Center) are wrong in how they define holocaust denial and your definition is correct? Or are you saying that Anne Frank Center defines holocaust denial the same way you do, and I am simply misinterpreting their definition?

To accuse him of holocaust denial is to downplay what holocaust denial actually is.

And you're diminishing the meaning of the word.

I'm going to come back to addressing this particular line of thinking... but I don't want to start too many discussions at the same time.

 

[Ryika]

Keep in mind that I am telling you what I think the people accusing Spicy mean when they say "holocaust denial." I acknowledge that you (and many others) do not embrace their definition of holocaust denial. You have your own definition that you prefer. But they (the people accusing Spicy) do not embrace your definition. They have their own definition that they embrace. What I am doing is explaining to you what their definition is so that we aren't talking past each other... precisely to avoid you "not understanding how I'm using the word"... What you seem to be doing is ignoring my explanation and claiming that the definition confuses you. You shouldn't be confused at this point because I've explained it to you like three times, right?

Well. Yes. I have understood that now, and this is indeed quite embarrassing. I should have read your posts more carefully, not sure how I misread your very unambiguous posts twice. Sorry.

So, again... are you trying to convince me that they (The Anne Frank Center) are wrong in how they define holocaust denial and your definition is correct?

That pretty much, but it's not a matter of "wrong" and "correct". I was trying to convince you that they are doing themselves a disfavor in using a definition that I think is not commonly used.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm thinking that something that can be accurately described as "fake obliviousness about the details of the holocaust" is probably close enough to the "more commonly used" definition of holocaust denial as to not cause them a lot of problems.

 

[Ryika]

I guess we have to agree to disagree on that then. Acknowledging that Jews have been killed in death camps while simply not acknowledging that chemical weapons were used, does not sound like holocaust denial to me.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I guess we have to agree to disagree on that then. Acknowledging that Jews have been killed in death camps while simply not acknowledging that chemical weapons were used, does not sound like holocaust denial to me.

Kinda depends on the motivations. Denying the holocaust occurred at all is generally seen as an attempt to "demotivate compensation," as in "there's no reason to give Jews their own state since nothing bad ever really happened to them." It doesn't seem to be too great a stretch to put a willful disregarding of facts in an effort to support a "Hitler wasn't so bad" claim in the same general category. At least to me...but I see your point as well.

 

[Ryika]

But what he said isn't equal to saying "Hitler wasn't so bad", what he's saying is equal to "Hitler is the worst person I can think of, but even that person didn't do the terrible thing that the person we're dealing with now".

You don't vindicate a person by using them as the comparison to the person who you want to portrait as evil.

 

[JollyRoger]

Actually, he said Truman was worse than Hitler.

 

[Ryika]

"Equal to" =/= "What he actually meant or thought"

 

[Berzerker]

To clarify, what I posted doesn't mean that Sommerswerd 'endorsed' doing that. It means that Sommerswerd was raising that it is an issue, and that people beyond CFC care about it. What he posted was exactly the opposite of an endorsement.

Yes, what he posted afterward was the opposite... But he liked your post. He put his stamp of approval right below your comment. And now he says its a flagrant lie while still giving you credit for understanding what he meant. Well, he didn't accuse you of a flagrant lie, he saved that for me.

As FP explains above, you're wrong... once again. FP wasnt "trying to figure out what i meant" he understood what i meant. Pretty much everyone understood what i meant except you. Do you see that now?

So you agree BLM excludes people and ALM should be used instead? Thats FPs understanding of your point.

And The reason you don't get it, won't get it, refuse to get it, is because you are still smarting over the roasting you got in the Zimmerman argument. It's burning you up inside and you can't let it go... so you're desperately trying to make this discussion about that, so you can relitigate it.

I didn't bring up "all lives matters". You did... I was responding to you and Lex, you guys were talking about it. Now you're accusing me of smarting over it and trying to bring it here in the same post you're smarting over it and trying to bring it here. Project much?

Also, this bolded word... is a straw man, and/or hyperbole... take your pick... which is ironic and hypocritical given your earlier attempt to distinguish Tim and I by stating that while I straw man by "parsing three words", Tim parses AND adds in stuff that wasn't even said... which is exactly what you just did... EDIT: Ah here it is... you accused him of "fabricating"... I thought as much but I didn't want to misquote you: So now you can accuse yourself of fabricating.

I didn't quote you... I dont remember if Tim added or replaced 'stuff' in a quote, but yes, you selectively edit quotes and you're still doing it. And one more time, I didn't quote you.

Here's what I said:

But now you find it disgusting, a flagrant lie, a straw man.

What did you say?

As anyone familiar with me or my posting history knows, this is a ridiculous flagrant lie and an obvious strawman.

I interpreted and characterized your reaction as one of disgust, so what? Was I wrong? Were you happy to see that ridiculous flagrant lie/straw man? Oh, one more time, it wasn't a quote - you and Tim like to play games with quotes, not me. Now, are you denying that you interpret and characterize other people's arguments or was the hypocrisy of your accusation lost in that Seattle fog? When I did it, I was accurate. When you do it, I get to read some fantasy about your debating prowess.

Here's FP's interpretation of your point again:

I think he was talking about the broader issue of people thinking that 'black lives matter' excludes people, and that 'all lives matter' should be used instead.

Was that your point or not? Why did you like that? And why is it a lie to say you agreed with him?