- 164
- 16
What is this place?
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.
If in doubt, please post it!
Rules
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
You don't see the circular logic that's being used here? Yad Vashem and mainstream historiography starts with the assumption that nearly all Jews listed in transport documents were murdered in gas chambers. So, if someone is on a transport list, they get listed in the database as a murder victim. Then, in a debate over whether the purpose of these transports was extermination or resettlement, you cite the names from this database that have presupposed the murder of almost all the evacuees.
The Holocaust is the only controversy where you can just list a name, Date of Birth, "some sort of police document" and then claim that she was murdered without any factual basis.
Typically when you claim someone was murdered, you would require some sort of evidence, such as: death certificate, excavation and identification of remains, autopsies, time of death, cause of death, location of death. You require absolutely none of these things to cite this person as a murder victim. Can you explain any sort of investigation or verification that was used to determine this person was murdered during the war? Or do you not even require the most minimum amount of evidence to believe?
None of your citations include any evidence that the people listed were murdered, except that the Yad Vashem database gives them all the label of "murdered." Where? When? How?
What documents need to have been falsified? You have the name, date of birth, and a single document from a person who was 57 years old in 1945. You are telling me she was murdered without any evidence or elaboration on how this crime was done.
You immediately retreated from multiple salacious claims in your previous posts: your first false claim that the Germans executed 50-100 citizens for each soldier killed in the invasion, and your second claim that 70,000 Jews from the Lodz Ghetto were murdered in Auschwitz.
The latter falsity is especially revealing because it shows when you try to claim with any specificity as to when, where, or how Jews were murdered in gas chambers you can't defend evidence for your claim. You immediately retreat to "look at this 57 year old woman and her passport application in the Yad Vashem database" when pressed with evidence against your claim. Documents show that your claim was false, and it furthermore shows how "mainstream historiography" works: just declare huge swaths of people as murder victims with 0 standard of evidence.
I will ask again, because you keep evading the main question when I include literally anything besides the main question in my responses
Do you have any specific, falsifiable beliefs about the provenance of those 4.8 million names and the fate of the people those names referred to?
A specific, falsifiable belief might be something like "those names mostly did not belong to real people" or "most of the people who were listed as murdered were actually resettled in Siberia, where they lived long and happy lives" or "they mostly died in the ghettoes and in transit due to disease and starvation, but I don't count that as murder".
After you have answered that question, feel free to ask your above questions again.
My falsifiable claim is that there is no evidence those 4.8 million people were murdered by the Germans during the war. The database is a collection of names and documents with no evidence, investigation, or verification of murder. This is not a legitimate database of murder victims, as any database of murder victims would require some sort of investigation and verification that the entries are people who were actually murdered.
If you are claiming they were murdered, you should demonstrate evidence that they were murdered. An example would be your claim that 70,000 Jews were sent from Lodz to Auschwitz in 1944 to be exterminated. That's an example of an actual accusation of murder we can investigate. Revisionists have investigated that claim and, using contemporaneous documents, shown that claim you be false. You haven't even tried to defend that claim since you initially cited it, so you've fallen back to "look here's a name, DOB, and passport application- this person was murdered!"
People should be extremely suspicious upon learning that there are known locations where the remains of up to a million Jews are said to be buried, but nobody has had the motive to actually excavate those alleged mass graves- despite the obvious propaganda motive that ought to exist but seems to be outweighed by other concerns. So people like you are reduced to pointing at a bunch of names in a database with no commensurate evidence that they were murdered.
Revisionists are the ones who actually want to investigate the scene of the crime. Yad Vashem wants to scan a passport application and add it to their database so the faithful have something they can point to when they claim 6 million were murdered.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link