I think it's unnecessary to talk about in the context of the culture war. Your post almost sounds like you're denying the Holocaust for instrumental reasons, although I think you've posted that your reasoning went the opposite way. In any case, there's no need to deny the Holocaust to think the ADL is full of shit or to think that mass immigration is bad. If not the Holocaust (which I do think happened) someone will simply make up a fake genocide like the time the French killed more than the entire population of Algeria when they conquered it. But that would not justify Algerian immigration to France even if it was true!
Historical arguments are rarely politically productive. It's not like debunking Rousseau would destroy progressivism by taking out its roots, people would carry on exactly as they had before. Disproving the Holocaust would be the same. We know MLK was an awful person, but it hasn't taken even a little bit of wind out of the sails of progressivism.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
6tjk 1yr ago
Let's say theoretically that Revisionists are correct, you would still say it's unnecessary to talk about in the context of the culture war? Revisionists being correct wouldn't change your opinion on any culture war topics? If so, then we can just agree to disagree, and you're free to avoid discussion of it as you please.
If, theoretically, you learned the Revisionists aren't correct, would it alter your opinion of Jews at all?
That's why most most people don't really care about Holocaust denial and would not be much moved even if you could convince them that at least some parts of the historically accepted narrative are false.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
Amadan 1yr ago·Edited 1yr ago
That's why most most people don't really care about Holocaust denial and would not be much moved even if you could convince them that at least some parts of the historically accepted narrative are false.
"At least some parts" of all historical narratives are false, I'm obviously making a stronger claim than that. I think a lot of people would be moved by learning, for example, that there were no gas chambers or extermination camps. People here put on a display pretending that they wouldn't care if that Revisionist critique of the historical narrative turned out to be true. But it's hard to believe them when they otherwise seem pretty dishonest about their disposition towards Revisionism.
With all the criticisms you could make of Holocaust denial, "most people don't really care about Holocaust denial" is probably the least believable complaint you could make. People care a lot about Holocaust denial. Revisionism is systematically censored across all major platforms for publishing, social media, and video content. It's banned by law, with many people currently serving time for the crime of Holocaust denial. Canada, last year, is the most recent nation to criminalize Holocaust denial. Recently the head of CODOH, Germar Rudolf, has resigned and is in hiding in the United States because the US has denied his green card renewal and denied his application for political asylum- despite the fact he is married to an American wife with whom he has American children, and Germany has simultaneously refused to renew his passport. He is trying to avoid being deported to Germany for which he would spend many years in jail.
The people who seem to be most animated in responding to Holocaust denial also seem to be the ones saying how they don't care about the topic, or find it boring, but I just don't believe you because it's not the way someone acts when they have no investment in a topic. The number of replies I have received suggests that a lot of people care about the topic.
Okay, I should not have said "People don't really care about Holocaust denial," because you're right, obviously they do, it's an emotive topic.
But what I meant (and I think you know I meant this), is that even convincing people that the Holocaust was "less bad/exaggerated/not an intentional planned industrial-scale genocide" is not going to get anyone where you are actually trying to get them, which is joining you in your animosity towards Jews and following you down the ZOG rabbit hole.
So when I say I (and we) are bored and don't care about your umpteenth iteration on the subject, it's because (a) we do not find your arguments convincing and repeating another wall of text about it looks like you're taking the obsessive "This time, I'll get through to them!" route, and (b) we know what your actual agenda is (it's not clarifying historical inaccuracies). It's like JB and his never-ending theses which always generated a lot of replies. The fact that he could always provoke lots of replies with very emotive topics does not mean he was not tiresome and boring going on about topics people were sick of. I get that you're going to keep doing it because you are on a crusade and you're hoping to pick up a few converts, but "Haha, obviously you care a lot because you keep arguing with me!" is not the own you think it is.
Bernd
Fighting algorithmic racism like John Henry
Amadan 1yr ago·Edited 1yr ago
I mean, he's convinced me that the holocaust will only be relevant to Americans until the second some group feels empowered to start the "White Tears About The Holocaust And Other Myths That Perpetuate White Supremacy" game, at which point none of the tactics you've used against SS will work any more.
Which is a fucking shame, because allowing it to become yet another forgotten genocide in the long string of them that make up most of human history means nobody learned anything, and we're probably in for an even worse one someday.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
Bernd 1yr ago
I mean, he's convinced me that the holocaust will only be relevant to Americans until the second some group feels empowered to start the "White Tears About The Holocaust And Other Myths That Perpetuate White Supremacy" game,
You believed that already.
at which point none of the tactics you've used against SS will work any more.
I'm not using any "tactics" against him, aside from honest and straightforward disagreement and disdain for his views and his agenda.
I find it ironic that even though you will stan anyone and anything, no matter how inflammatory, so long as it might trigger a liberal somewhere, even you had to add an obligatory disclaimer that you actually believe the Holocaust was a bad thing.
I'm already pretty right-wing, I would become more skeptical of historians in your scenario but none of my political positions would really change. If revisionists were correct about the Holocaust, it would be very important to set the historical record straight. But I think it would have a pretty minimal effect on the culture war.
Let me ask you a question: What do you think would happen, culture-war wise, if you were able to prove that the Holocaust was fabricated?
Let me ask you a question: What do you think would happen, culture-war wise, if you were able to prove that the Holocaust was fabricated?
The revisionists will tell you that they can 100% prove that Holocaust never happened, but no one is listening.
Let me rephrase the question: What would happen if Wikipedia, NYT, CNN, BBC, FOX etc... accepted revisionist thesis, and changed their official line into: "Germans during WW2 put Jews in camps, and then the wily Russians killed them all, blamed the Germans and lied so skillfully that whole world was fooled."
Well, it would be perfect propaganda line for second round of Cold War, the perfect proof that Russians are up to no good, could never be trusted and no compromise with them is possible.
This new line will not rehabilitate the Nazis, would not make them look good, but would make Soviets look worse.
Current official history, both popular and academic, sees Hitler as 100% evil and Stalin as 99,99% evil. With this new revelation, the proportion will be reversed.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think it's unnecessary to talk about in the context of the culture war. Your post almost sounds like you're denying the Holocaust for instrumental reasons, although I think you've posted that your reasoning went the opposite way. In any case, there's no need to deny the Holocaust to think the ADL is full of shit or to think that mass immigration is bad. If not the Holocaust (which I do think happened) someone will simply make up a fake genocide like the time the French killed more than the entire population of Algeria when they conquered it. But that would not justify Algerian immigration to France even if it was true!
Historical arguments are rarely politically productive. It's not like debunking Rousseau would destroy progressivism by taking out its roots, people would carry on exactly as they had before. Disproving the Holocaust would be the same. We know MLK was an awful person, but it hasn't taken even a little bit of wind out of the sails of progressivism.
Let's say theoretically that Revisionists are correct, you would still say it's unnecessary to talk about in the context of the culture war? Revisionists being correct wouldn't change your opinion on any culture war topics? If so, then we can just agree to disagree, and you're free to avoid discussion of it as you please.
If, theoretically, you learned the Revisionists aren't correct, would it alter your opinion of Jews at all?
That's why most most people don't really care about Holocaust denial and would not be much moved even if you could convince them that at least some parts of the historically accepted narrative are false.
"At least some parts" of all historical narratives are false, I'm obviously making a stronger claim than that. I think a lot of people would be moved by learning, for example, that there were no gas chambers or extermination camps. People here put on a display pretending that they wouldn't care if that Revisionist critique of the historical narrative turned out to be true. But it's hard to believe them when they otherwise seem pretty dishonest about their disposition towards Revisionism.
With all the criticisms you could make of Holocaust denial, "most people don't really care about Holocaust denial" is probably the least believable complaint you could make. People care a lot about Holocaust denial. Revisionism is systematically censored across all major platforms for publishing, social media, and video content. It's banned by law, with many people currently serving time for the crime of Holocaust denial. Canada, last year, is the most recent nation to criminalize Holocaust denial. Recently the head of CODOH, Germar Rudolf, has resigned and is in hiding in the United States because the US has denied his green card renewal and denied his application for political asylum- despite the fact he is married to an American wife with whom he has American children, and Germany has simultaneously refused to renew his passport. He is trying to avoid being deported to Germany for which he would spend many years in jail.
The people who seem to be most animated in responding to Holocaust denial also seem to be the ones saying how they don't care about the topic, or find it boring, but I just don't believe you because it's not the way someone acts when they have no investment in a topic. The number of replies I have received suggests that a lot of people care about the topic.
Okay, I should not have said "People don't really care about Holocaust denial," because you're right, obviously they do, it's an emotive topic.
But what I meant (and I think you know I meant this), is that even convincing people that the Holocaust was "less bad/exaggerated/not an intentional planned industrial-scale genocide" is not going to get anyone where you are actually trying to get them, which is joining you in your animosity towards Jews and following you down the ZOG rabbit hole.
So when I say I (and we) are bored and don't care about your umpteenth iteration on the subject, it's because (a) we do not find your arguments convincing and repeating another wall of text about it looks like you're taking the obsessive "This time, I'll get through to them!" route, and (b) we know what your actual agenda is (it's not clarifying historical inaccuracies). It's like JB and his never-ending theses which always generated a lot of replies. The fact that he could always provoke lots of replies with very emotive topics does not mean he was not tiresome and boring going on about topics people were sick of. I get that you're going to keep doing it because you are on a crusade and you're hoping to pick up a few converts, but "Haha, obviously you care a lot because you keep arguing with me!" is not the own you think it is.
I mean, he's convinced me that the holocaust will only be relevant to Americans until the second some group feels empowered to start the "White Tears About The Holocaust And Other Myths That Perpetuate White Supremacy" game, at which point none of the tactics you've used against SS will work any more.
Which is a fucking shame, because allowing it to become yet another forgotten genocide in the long string of them that make up most of human history means nobody learned anything, and we're probably in for an even worse one someday.
You believed that already.
I'm not using any "tactics" against him, aside from honest and straightforward disagreement and disdain for his views and his agenda.
I find it ironic that even though you will stan anyone and anything, no matter how inflammatory, so long as it might trigger a liberal somewhere, even you had to add an obligatory disclaimer that you actually believe the Holocaust was a bad thing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'll reiterate that I haven't posted a single top-level thread on Holocaust denial, and my inbox is flooded with people who want to talk about it, so:
People seem interested, including you, so that's another sneer at the topic that doesn't ring true.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm already pretty right-wing, I would become more skeptical of historians in your scenario but none of my political positions would really change. If revisionists were correct about the Holocaust, it would be very important to set the historical record straight. But I think it would have a pretty minimal effect on the culture war.
Let me ask you a question: What do you think would happen, culture-war wise, if you were able to prove that the Holocaust was fabricated?
The revisionists will tell you that they can 100% prove that Holocaust never happened, but no one is listening.
Let me rephrase the question: What would happen if Wikipedia, NYT, CNN, BBC, FOX etc... accepted revisionist thesis, and changed their official line into: "Germans during WW2 put Jews in camps, and then the wily Russians killed them all, blamed the Germans and lied so skillfully that whole world was fooled."
Well, it would be perfect propaganda line for second round of Cold War, the perfect proof that Russians are up to no good, could never be trusted and no compromise with them is possible.
This new line will not rehabilitate the Nazis, would not make them look good, but would make Soviets look worse.
Current official history, both popular and academic, sees Hitler as 100% evil and Stalin as 99,99% evil. With this new revelation, the proportion will be reversed.
Anatoly Karlin tongue in cheek predicted this scenario years ago.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link