What is "leftism"?

[Tahuti]

This was immensely unpopular with the German people. And I think, in this kind of climate holocaust denial was made illegal.

I'd like to note that as intellectually weak holocaust denial is, German acknowledgment of the Holocaust was brought about by forceful propaganda campaigns undertaken by the allies (often with the help of anti-Nazi Germans) to instill a sense of collective guilt among the German populace. No such campaigns were undertaken against the Turks after WWI, the Japanese after WWII or the Russians after the cold war, which is why historical negationism regarding taboo topics is still quite common in Turkey, Japan and much of the former Soviet Union.

 

[Angst]

It's interesting how this thread only got really kickstarted by a Godwin.

 

[Ajidica]

It's interesting how this thread only got really kickstarted by a Godwin.

Hitler, Palestine, and Abortion. The discussion core of any forum.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well no, it's not. Not believing in the holocaust is like not believing in the sun or the moon.

Not believing in the Holocaust doesn't really make any sense, but its not quite that obvious. You can literally see the Sun and the Moon right in front of you at certain times of day. With the Holocaust, we are relying on the testimony of others, albeit a lot of people.

Holocaust denial should be viewed as a conspiracy theory, albeit one that has a high possibility of either hatred of Jews or hatred of America.

Its not even necessary to deny the Holocaust to condemn US action in World War Two. The first World War should never have happened, blame America for THAT war and the dominoes fall anyways.

Comparing it to flat earth makes more sense, at least you can't actually SEE that the Earth is round, other than going into space yourself you can delusionally convince yourself of conspiracy...

Also...

I didn't say it was smart to not believe in the holocaust, just that making it illegal is a stupid idea.

This

Speech should never be illegal.

 

[Oruc]

The principle is the important part of the evocation of the quote. There's no point in talking about how I am not personally fighting at this very moment for the rights of people whose free speech is oppressed in Germany of all places. What have you done today to personally advance the cause of battered women/ending premature birth/pro-choice/pro-life/etc?

I never said I would defend any of these things to the death.

 

[Cutlass]

You don't know much about the historical process then, I guess.

There is much about the Holocaust that is postulation. We have individual accounts, and Allied records that indicate something big and terrible happening, but the precise extent and characteristics of that are still a topic of debate amongst period scholars. There is no disputing that enormous numbers of Jews and other dissidents were sent to labor camps and extermination camps, but precise things like "x number of Jews/communists/Gypsies/et al" died, this thing happened at this location at this time, involving this number of people, are largely postulated.

But then, nearly all of what is termed "Holocaust denial" is really a doubting in some form or another the data and information about the Holocaust and not disputing that the event in some form or another actually occurred; a minority of it is actual "this event did not happen, it is all an imagined fabrication without basis in reality."

So there is a large gray area in a situation which you have already oversimplified.

Researching the details, even having conflicting evidence on the details and coming to some different conclusions about them is a fundamentally different thing from saying the whole event did not happen. There has to be some point at which we say "we know this as a fact", as opposed to "we think this based on the evidence" or "we surmise this based on partial or indirect evidence". What we know for a certainty should be the starting point, and then work downwards based on the quality of the evidence. Without that history seems to me no better than philosophy.

 

[Traitorfish]

There has to be some point at which we say "we know this as a fact", as opposed to "we think this based on the evidence" or "we surmise this based on partial or indirect evidence". What we know for a certainty should be the starting point, and then work downwards based on the quality of the evidence. Without that history seems to me no better than philosophy.

tl;dr: "I want to be able to claim certainty, so I will."

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Researching the details, even having conflicting evidence on the details and coming to some different conclusions about them is a fundamentally different thing from saying the whole event did not happen. There has to be some point at which we say "we know this as a fact", as opposed to "we think this based on the evidence" or "we surmise this based on partial or indirect evidence". What we know for a certainty should be the starting point, and then work downwards based on the quality of the evidence. Without that history seems to me no better than philosophy.

It's not, really. Everything involving the past is postulation, the piecing together of an incomplete puzzle based upon interpreted evidence. Some "events" or "periods" have more pieces available to us than others, but we will never have all the pieces, and the ones we do have present tiny parts upon which we assume, based upon how those tiny parts seem to fit with other tiny parts, and by thinking about it, what might have happened.

That's why the historical disciplines (including also geology, archeology, cosmology, and other things involving the past) are still vigorously productive fields. Everyone is always discovering new evidence, or new ways to look at something. Some of it's crap, some of it isn't. And some of it is assumed to be crap by people who fall into the trap of believing in their present understanding's certainty in an uncertain discipline.

 

[Cutlass]

tl;dr: "I want to be able to claim certainty, so I will."

Only about those things which are certain.

It's not, really. Everything involving the past is postulation, the piecing together of an incomplete puzzle based upon interpreted evidence. Some "events" or "periods" have more pieces available to us than others, but we will never have all the pieces, and the ones we do have present tiny parts upon which we assume, based upon how those tiny parts seem to fit with other tiny parts, and by thinking about it, what might have happened.

That's why the historical disciplines (including also geology, archeology, cosmology, and other things involving the past) are still vigorously productive fields. Everyone is always discovering new evidence, or new ways to look at something. Some of it's crap, some of it isn't. And some of it is assumed to be crap by people who fall into the trap of believing in their present understanding's certainty in an uncertain discipline.

I can see where an awful lot of it is in fact based on incomplete, and therefor uncertain, evidence. But not all things are. Some things we may not know every detail, but we do in fact know some things for a certainty. And I don't see any reason to not accept that and move on.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Only about those things which are certain.







I can see where an awful lot of it is in fact based on incomplete, and therefor uncertain, evidence. But not all things are. Some things we may not know every detail, but we do in fact know some things for a certainty. And I don't see any reason to not accept that and move on.

Well as I said before, there's a lot more to the point of view that gets lumped into Holocaust Denial than just "it didn't happen." Questioning any part of the popular history of the Holocaust is considered to be Denial. And considering the uncertain nature of the historical discipline, we must always have room to question the veracity of everything. The moment you try to say "this is a fact which you may not question" is when you edge closer to the logic behind religion. It's scholarship. Things will be questioned, and should be questioned. It's always on the challenger to present contrary or significantly challenging evidence, obviously.

To be quite frank, you cannot simply make a statement of fact about something historical and then "move on." All that's saying is "I've found a worldview/historical interpretation that is convenient for me, and now I'm set." It's dogmatic and closed-minded. It's precisely the kind of thing that many of us spend so much time here arguing with a certain teenage lolbertarian trying to stop.

 

[Traitorfish]

Only about those things which are certain.

Circular reasoning.

 

[Mouthwash]

I've been told before I'm a "leftist". That must mean I subscribe to the idealistic views of "leftism". Now, pray tell, what is leftism and what views am I accordingly supposed to have?

Leftism is having your heart bleed more then healthy, balanced people, and having that emotional abnormality twist your political views.

 

[Traitorfish]

Where did conservatives get this fetish for "rationality", anyway? Up until at least the interwar period their whole shtick was their opposition to political rationalism; it was pretty much defined them as "the Right".

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Where did conservatives get this fetish for "rationality", anyway? Up until at least the interwar period their whole shtick was their opposition to political rationalism; it was pretty much defined them as "the Right".

It's necessary in order to paint us as "hopeless idealists living in dream world," so they portray themselves as being rational and realistic, dealing with people and the world as it really is and which no one can do anything about. It's a beautiful logic, that if this is the way everything must be, and will always strive to return to when changed, then why fight it? It's immoral, but it creates an iron mental justification for closing their minds and doing their best to become sycophants of the rich and powerful.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Regarding the Holocaust thing, how much are the numbers up for destruction? It was my perception that, at minimum, Holocaust deniers take an entire digit off the numbers (In other words, hundreds of thousands rather than millions) not merely debating how many millions, or deny that the concentration camps actually existed (I've heard someone do so while still admitting that Hitler did kill Jews, just apparently in a more efficient, less torturous way.)

How much are the numbers and or methods actually up for debate? I was under the impression that while obviously the exact numbers are up for debate, the fact that multiples of millions of people were killed was not seriously up for question, nor was the fact that they were tortured and killed in concentration camps. Is my assessment of the debate accurate?

 

[Borachio]

I've seen a document that magicked the entire 6 million victims away, iirc.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

They span the gamut from "it's all a lie" to "they were poorly managed labor camps," to the far more nuanced "the numbers regarding the number of Jews killed are extrapolated and not simply added up or counted bodies." It's a mass attempt at extermination during the largest war in history, on a continent where lots of people were dying both at the front and at home. Trying to figure out just how many of a specific type of people died in a specific way is going to be sketchy at best, even if half the records weren't destroyed.

In comparison, we have pretty good numbers on just how many people Stalin had executed, deported, or sent to labor camps (but not really ad hoc events like Dekulakization, or the victims of the 1932-33 famine). That's why I can't take seriously someone who throws around ludicrous numbers about "Stalin's death count."

 

[Mouthwash]

It's necessary in order to paint us as "hopeless idealists living in dream world," so they portray themselves as being rational and realistic, dealing with people and the world as it really is and which no one can do anything about. It's a beautiful logic, that if this is the way everything must be, and will always strive to return to when changed, then why fight it? It's immoral, but it creates an iron mental justification for closing their minds and doing their best to become sycophants of the rich and powerful.

How much contempt can you have for people who disagree with you? Every capitalist is now a brainwashed servant of the rich?

Also, the Socialist Man doesn't exist. Sorry.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

How much contempt can you have for people who disagree with you?

A great deal. But none of that was expressed in my post. I simply pointed out the mental hoops that capitalist defenders jump through in order to justify their worldview and condemn ours, and how effective it is at preserving one-dimensional thinking.

Every capitalist is now a brainwashed servant of the rich?

Every capitalist is, yes, because most capitalists are rich. But most people who defend capitalism are not capitalists. A fact in itself which should make one stop and think.

Also, the Socialist Man doesn't exist. Sorry.

I'm not sure what this statement means, or has to do with anything at all, except to rather crudely prove precisely what I just said.

 

[Mouthwash]

A great deal. But none of that was expressed in my post. I simply pointed out the mental hoops that capitalist defenders jump through in order to justify their worldview and condemn ours, and how effective it is at preserving one-dimensional thinking.

Actually, I think of liberals and communists as being blind and emotional, which of course invariably produces an idealistic and extremely arrogant view of the world. However, I find that libertarians (especially the extreme Rothbardian variety) are even more idealistically biased towards their economic systems, probably because it actually makes philosophical sense (but that has no impact on its viability as a realistic society). I find conservatives are generally the most rational and unbiased people. The people who are more concerned about whether their leaders are good Christians rather than their actual policies I dub "orthodox," which is conservatism taken to its most extreme.

Every capitalist is, yes, because most capitalists are rich. But most people who defend capitalism are not capitalists. A fact in itself which should make one stop and think.

Oh, I do. I think the fact that the conclusion you draw from seeing people defending a system that ideologically gives them no satisfaction or caters to their emotional needs is that they are simply brainwashed by those that benefit from the system says a great deal about your objectivity or alleged idealism. Indeed, a system such as communism which DOES satisfy emotional needs has always, and will always, end up being exploited for political ends in the manner you just ascribed to capitalism. Tell me, do you even know what the philosophical arguments are supporting the free market and patriotism or do you consider them too primitive to look into?

I'm not sure what this statement means, or has to do with anything at all, except to rather crudely prove precisely what I just said.

It was a satirical jab at the intellectual justification for your ideology. Obviously.