Mark Hoofnagle has a PhD in physiology from the University of Virginia and is currently a 3rd year medical student. His interest in denialism concerns the use of denialist tactics to confuse public understanding of scientific knowledge.
I actually had thought the debate with holocaust denier David Irving and racist Nick Griffin at the Oxford Union had been canceled, but via Deborah Lipstadt's blog it turns out they made the mistake of giving the man an outlet for his nonsense. An account is offered by attendee Jonny Wright that I think supports our contention that denialists should not be debated.
Wright takes the side that free speech is always the best way to go, but the mistake here is thinking that free speech means inviting a holocaust denier to use your loudspeaker to spout nonsense. It never should have even been considered. All this does is give Irving a patina of legitimacy, and an opportunity to once again deny the truth, which he clearly does throughout the debate. The deniers will use this as an example of their fake historian being taken seriously, and legitimize the idea that there is an actual debate to be had over whether or not the holocaust happened. The other supporters of the invitation had similarly inane things to say, such as this nonsense
But participant Ms Atkins said controversial views should not be silenced but exposed."When you say that the majority view is always right I think that is a deeply dangerous and disturbing thing to say.
"I am not for a moment saying that I agree with David Irving or Nick Griffin but I am saying that once you start having truth by democracy you risk silencing some of the most important prophets we have ever had."
This is making the false assumption that truth by democracy is what makes people like Irving and Griffin wrong. The issue isn't what the majority approves of but having standards for honest debate. You simply can't have that with people who lie and misrepresent science or history to serve a ideological agenda.
The tougher issue, however, is what to do when the denier got invited. The anti-fascist demonstration clearly got out of hand trying to prevent entry of anyone into the debate. Wright categorizes this as anti-free speech and hypocritical (just as hypocritical as "free speech" advocate Irving's lawsuit against Deborah Lipstadt to silence her), and I agree with that much. But the goal of putting pressure on the Oxford Union not to have the debate in the first place was certainly correct, and protesting outside of the debate and calling the attendees useful idiots of Irving would have been just fine as well. It's not suppression of free speech to refuse denialists access to your platform though, and that is just what should have been done. After all, the issue is not the content of what Irving discussed that night, but rather the legitimacy that a venerated debate society confers on the denier by virtue of their invitation.
Politics
Comments
"The legitimacy that a venerated debate society confers on the denier by virtue of their invitation."
David Icke was meant to have been there earlier this month explaining his theory that humanity is being run by a cabal of disguised giant lizards, which shows the level the Oxford Union is at at the moment.
Posted by: AE | November 27, 2007 9:12 AM
They shouldn't have been invited. The right to free speech doesn't include the necessity to provide privelidged platforms to viurulent racists. Having said that, once they had been invited I guess they have to be allowed to speak. This is both on the grounds of right to free speech and also for more pragmatic reason; disrupting their performances allows them to score political points. Those protesting outside had every right to do so; those who stormed the event should be ashamed of themselves.
On a slightly tangential point, many people have been disgusted by the invite to Griffin and Irving. There was less fuss made when the Oxford Union invited equally (if not more so) loathsome members of Hizb ut Tahir. Likewise, many mainstream newspapers in this country carry articles by the noxious Muslim Brotherhood, yet not Griffin or Irving. This double standard is worrying.
Posted by: SteveF | November 27, 2007 9:31 AM
Another report is by Micah Richards at:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/micah_smith/2007/11/a_crushing_disappointment.html
Posted by: Alun | November 27, 2007 10:59 AM
Why do people get so worked up about this? So he doesn't think a specific event happened in the way the history books record, what's the big deal?
Posted by: antihumanist | November 27, 2007 11:23 AM
1. Are you saying that truth isn't important?
2. This isn't about disagreement alone. These people use all sorts of unethical, dishonest tactics. The same kind of propaganda techniques that anti-science crowds are fond of, and are steadily dumbing down the world.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | November 27, 2007 11:51 AM
1. How do you define truth in a universe where the past is inaccessible to us in the present? A religious person claims to know the truth of their dogma based on a human recording of the past, as all human history is.
2. Unfortunately, history is not a science in our universe.
Posted by: antihumanist | November 27, 2007 12:16 PM
The Oxford Union is making the same error that Deborah Lipstadt criticized naive campus newspaper editors for doing: thinking that "both sides" are equally legitimate in terms of "debate" and so deserve "equal space" in newspaper columns. That's how these foolish editors were duped into running ads by Holocaust revision-liars and even allowing them to run opinion pieces. Now the Oxford Union is as stupid and naive as some student journalists circa the 80s.
Nothing is beyond the pale anymore. There is apparently no cause that cannot be given a respectful hearing, no conspiracy that cannot be spewed (I know academics who believe in 9/11 - and even Pearl Harbor - conspiracy theories) shamelessly, no lie that cannot be given a prestigious forum, no public figure too heinous to be turned away.
Some people have double standards because they are playing an ideological game. There were those who denounced eugenicist-racialist James Watson's continuing chancellorship at Cold Spring Harbor while applauding Ahmadinejad's forum at Columbia, and vice versa. There are those who gush over Muslim Brotherhood promoter Tariq Ramadan while demanding the head of radio bigot Don Imus. There are tenured professors who assert there were no gas chambers and professors who say that Stalin wasn't all that murderous. Deny them tenure, fire them, refuse to provide them with prestige, do not give them accolades, shame them, publicly shun them. (I'm not talking about legal persecution.) Some things are beyond the pale.
Posted by: Colugo | November 27, 2007 12:36 PM
Antihumanist, your comments are astoundingly disingenuous.
If you doubt that the holocaust occured because "the past is inaccessible", read Michael Shermer's writings on the holocaust, and the convergence of evidence that supports the accepted account. I don't know of any religion that is supported by photos, motion pictures, accounts from still-living people, forensic evidence, building sites, etc.
"Why do people get so worked up about this?" Come on.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | November 27, 2007 12:47 PM
"How do you define truth in a universe where the past is inaccessible to us in the present?"
Holy Flirking Shnit this is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. "The Past is inaccessible"?
1. Go to your local VFW hall.
2. Talk to the veterans there.
3. Specifically, ask them if any of them saw Treblinka, Dachau, or Auschwitz.
4. Ask them what they saw there.
4a. Ask them if they will ever forget the things and people they saw.
Stop trying to dress up your antisemitism as some sort of quest for truth and meaning.
Posted by: Jesse | November 27, 2007 1:22 PM
T. Bruce McNeely: My stance on the holocaust is the same as my stance on all of human history. It is of no concern to me.
Jesse: Based on the evidence, the holocaust most likely happened. I'm curious though, why did you assume that I was a holocaust denier?
Posted by: Anonymous | November 27, 2007 2:03 PM
Anonymous (AKA antihumanist?) - Interesting answer. I really don't know what else to say.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | November 27, 2007 3:27 PM
Let me guess, antihumanist, you have a bunch of Feral Press books, listen to bands like Burzum and Blood Axis, and consider yourself one of the "elite."
Posted by: Colugo | November 27, 2007 3:51 PM
I mean Feral House. Whatever. More profiling of 'antihumanist': Jim Goad, Dwid, LeVay, Whitehouse, James Mason, Death in June, Julius Evola. Typical misanthropy-rationalizing schlock. How did I do?
Posted by: Colugo | November 27, 2007 3:57 PM
Also, I bet "antihumanist" is into the photographic art of Joel-Peter Witkin. Banal transgression.
What a badass, shrugging at the Holocaust. Why, he must be far above the herd, with terribly refined sensibilities.
Posted by: Colugo | November 27, 2007 4:04 PM
I agree that denialism cheapens discussion and that there shouldn't be equal treatment to research vs. opinion, but sitting quietly by and saying nothing brought about the ID stickers and inclusion of ID being taught in schools because no one would show up to the school meetings and debate. There has to be a place for the debating of these subjects, whether it be ID, holocaust denialism, etc. What do you recommend?
Posted by: amelie | November 27, 2007 4:04 PM
"Jesse: Based on the evidence, the holocaust most likely happened. I'm curious though, why did you assume that I was a holocaust denier?"
How about your use of 'most likely' instead of certainly or definitely?
Posted by: Jesse | November 27, 2007 5:31 PM
Colugo, I'm having to look on Wikipedia as I've never heard of, let alone have an interest in the things you think I should.
Posted by: antihumanist | November 27, 2007 5:41 PM
Jesse: I can't claim with certainty that the universe wasn't created 5 minutes ago. Can you?
Posted by: antihumanist | November 27, 2007 5:50 PM
"Jesse: I can't claim with certainty that the universe wasn't created 5 minutes ago. Can you?"
You just get dumber by the minute, don't you?
Posted by: Jesse | November 27, 2007 5:53 PM
antihumanist, since you seem to have very severe problems making any sense at all, I'm going to ask you some very simple 'yes' or 'no' questions. That's all I want from you, 'yes' or 'no', not a mini-rant about the age of the universe.
1. Do you believe that the Nazis murdered countless Jews in concentration camps?
2. Are you an anti-semite?
Posted by: Jesse | November 27, 2007 5:57 PM
I guess my attempt at profiling pegged you wrong, antihumanist. I thought you were a subcultural pop transgressive in training.
Are you the same individual who made this despicable comment in regard to Watson's remarks on African intelligence:
"Any group of people who would let a completely preventable disease such as AIDS destroy their population is stupid. ...
Posted by: antihumanist | October 19, 2007 12:41 AM"
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/cshl_acts_against_watson.php#comment-607444
Posted by: Colugo | November 27, 2007 6:08 PM
1. Do you believe that the Nazis murdered countless Jews in concentration camps?
Yes.
2. Are you an anti-semite?
No.
Posted by: antihumanist | November 27, 2007 6:54 PM
Colugo: I did indeed. Why is it a despicable comment?
Posted by: antihumanist | November 27, 2007 6:55 PM
Trblnk - schwtz - wtnss vdnc?
1. scntst wll lk t th phscl clms md - n th bv cs t s th lgstcs prblm: trnsprt - ndrss - gs - brn [n Trblnk's cs n xtr: - br - xhm - brn].
2. Wrk t hw lng t wld tk t dsps f 800,000+ t Trblnk, nd 4 mlln, srr, snc 1993 r thrbts, nl 1-1.5 mlln bds.
3. Frgt th rst - fcs n th phscl spcts nd dn't gt nvlvd n th vr mttnl spct f th Hlcst.
4. Thn, lk t Rbrt Jn vn Plt/Dbrh Dwrk's bk t p 363-364 whr t s sttd tht Krm ws dcmmssnd - wht hppnd thr ws tht krm ws prprd t smblcll rprsnt wht hppnd t Krm - schwtz-Brkn/schwtz.
5. Thn lk t Frtjf Mr's rtcl n strp, M 2002, whr th gssng llgdl ccrrd n tw frm hss - bt 300,000 prsns.
6. nd rmnd rslf f Gtt Srn wh sttd n 2001 tht schwtz ws nt dth cmp - wtht sffrng n prsctn.
7. Nw, tk ths nfrmtn n brd, tgthr wth th scntfc mxm tht scnc s nt BSLT nd nn scntst wll ppnd n rrr t n rslts , thn wll hv t dmt tht r thnkng s nn-scntfc bt prl dlgcl
Thnk n ths thngs.
Dr Frdrck T�bn
[no holocaust denial allowed here crank]
Posted by: Dr Fredrick Töben | November 27, 2007 10:08 PM
Oh, goody. Arch Holocaust denier Frederick Toben has shown up. I'm envious. I've been writing about Holocaust denial and the idiocy of David Irving a lot longer than Mark has.
It's most amusing to see his comment disemvoweled, though. What a tool.
Posted by: Orac | November 27, 2007 11:14 PM
I find it very sad that so many in the university ghetto have abandoned the motto "I disagree with what you say but defend your right to say it" and adopted the motto "Athough I cannot prove that what you say is untrue, I oppose your right to say it."
As Sylvia Stolz points out, totalitarian attempts to proscribe opinion are doomed to failure in the age of the Internet.
Posted by: J M Damon | November 27, 2007 11:29 PM
I can prove what Irving and our visiting crank have said is untrue. And though I defend his right to say it, I will not allow such nonsense to be discussed in my forum.
Posted by: MarkH | November 28, 2007 12:03 AM
One thing to keep in mind about Irving is that a British court is on record as calling him a Nazi sympathiser, a holocaust denier and less than honest.
Irving decided to sue Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher over claims she made in a book calling Irving a holocaust denier. The judge ruled against Irving on the grounds that he was a holocaust denier and thus she had an absolute defence against libel. The the judgement the judge also made it clear that he thought Irving was not an honest person and had deep seated Nazi sympathies. The judgement effectively marked the end of any claim Irving had to being a serious historian although at least one British historian, John Keegan, continues to praise his scholarship. Personally I would consider anything Irving has ever written as suspect. He may have got things right on occasions but the effort involved in working out what, and telling that apart from where he just lied is too much work. There other historians who have written about Dresden and Hitler's Generals who are honest and who have a good reputation for scholarship.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 28, 2007 7:03 AM
Antihumanist, not that it matters but I think your notions on the truth are amusing and interesting. You get plus points for getting some of the regulars to arch their backs. :-)
Caring for the absolute truth indeed. So selective are we.
Posted by: Ted | November 28, 2007 9:59 AM
Th d nt prsct ppl lck thm p fr rs nd vn kdnp thm crss th tlntc s th dd wth rnst Zündl, Frssn, Grmr Rdlf tc. bcs th r tllng ls.
Th r prsctd bcs th g gnst pwrfl ntrsts, mn, pltcs, rlgn, Jws. Bcs thr cntrbtns t ndrstndng th trth r dngrs!
Th Jws r th rl cntr f th dbt, nd th hlcst s pshd n th nm f th Jws, nd th prsctn f ntllctl dssdnts s wll. Th cnstnt lbbng fr mr rstrctv lws cms drctl frm Jwsh nd Znst crcls.
Th Jws r ls t th cntr n wrld pltcs, thr ntrsts tk p dsprprtnl mnt f ttntn nd rsrcs n th wrld.
Tht's th rl rsn fr th tb!
nd Nck Grffn s std, nt bcs h s 'rcst', bt bcs h s nt t Znst slv, lk th mr sccsfl nt-mmgrtn prts n rp. Ths wh pldg llnc t srl nd thr hl hlcst r frgvn nd cn b ccptd n th pltcl mnstrm.
W hv 'BNP' spprtd gvrnmnt n Dnmrk (fr 6 rs nw) ! (Hv sn th cncntrtn cmps nd th gs chmbrs t? Hv sn th stts flld wth brwnshrts lkng fr frgnrs t trsh?)
r Dnsh Ppls Prt (14% f th vt thrd bggst prt) r ccptd, bcs th prc fr thr vl ntnlsm s tht th spprt srl..
cn rd mr bt sm f m bsltl bhrrnt thghts nd ds nd llgtns f Jwsh rspnsblt fr rstrctns f fr spch n rp nd th S n ths rtcl fr xmpl.
< hrf="http://blg.bldr.rg/?p=219" rl="nfllw">http://blg.bldr.rg/?p=219
[holocaust denial/racism/anti-semitism is not tolerated on this forum]
Posted by: Balder | November 28, 2007 12:59 PM
Th frst hlcst rvsnst ws th Frnchmn Prfssr Pl Rssnr . Rssnr ws hmslf ntrnd t th Bchnwld-dr cmp fr th lst 18 mnths f th wr. h ws ltr mmbr f th Frnch Ntnl ssmbl frm th Sclst Prt. Pls rmmbr tht ftr th lbrtn f th cmps n Grmn prpr ( Dch, Brgn-Blsn, Bchnwld, Rvnsbrck, Mthssn) t ws clmd tht thr wr gssng f prsnrs b zkln-b. n cn g t tb nd fnd ths S nd Brtsh rm flms n whch ths clm s md. Th nmts wr th srcs f ths strs s wll s Jwsh rgnstns n bth th S nd .K. Nw, Pl Rssnr cnfrntd th vrs frmr nmts lk hmslf wh hd wrttn bks bt thr xprncs nd hd rptd ths clm. t ws ths prssr frm Rssnr tht frcd th nsttt fr Cntmprr Hstr nd d Vshm t nnnc n 1960 tht thr wr n gssngs n Dch, nr n n f th thr cmps lctd n Grmn prpr ! Th cmps whr gssngs wr t hv tkn plc ws n th cmps lctd n Plnd ( schwtz, Trblnk, Sbbr, Mjdnk) . Bt pls rmmbr thr wr srvvr wtnsss wh hd md th clms tht thr wr gssngs t Dch, Brgn-Blsn, Bchnwld, tc... ) S, th nsspctng pblc ws ld t fr 15 rs ftr th wr bt th gs chmbrs t th cmps lctd n Grmn prpr. Jst lk th nsspctng pblc ws ld t bt th sp md frm Jwsh cdvrs nd th lmpshd md f hmn skn ! Wh wr w bng ld t fr 15 rs bt gs chmbrs t Dch nd bt th hmn sp nd lmpshd. Th rvsnsts hv trnd thr ttntn t th cmps lctd n Plnd nd r sng tht thr wr n lthl gssngs f nn b nn (Nzs) wth zkln-b whch hppns t b n nsctcd bcs thr r n fclts t ths cmps whch pn xprt xmntn (chmst) cld pssbl srv s gs chmbr whr hndrds f prsnrs cld b sphxtd t n tm. Dgsch, th cmpn tht snc 1920 prdcd zkln-b hd tchncl dt fr th prdct. Th mst hv rsrchd ts ffcc n kllng lc nd thr nscts . Tht s wht th prdct ws ntndd fr !
vn S Cstms mprtd zkln-b n th 1930s t dls Mxcn mgrnt wrkrs crssng th brdr t rrst th pssbl sprd f dss crrd b lc. Lt s lk t th clms f lthl mss gssngs frm scntfc prspctv. th Grmns dd nt hv mgc wnds. Th wr cnstrnd b th lws f phscs nd chmstr. W shld crtcll thnk bt wht s bng clmd nd s cmmn sns .
[again, no holocaust denial here, get lost]
Posted by: Joseph | November 28, 2007 1:47 PM
Yes, let's use common sense to rape the memories of the six million! Anne Frank rode a silver unicorn into the sunset! It's just fucking common sense, people! Whee!
You assholes make me sick.
Posted by: Boris | November 28, 2007 2:04 PM
Brs, n n s rpng th mmr f 6 mlln ppl ! d Vshm nd Dr. Mrtn Brszt frm th nsttt fr Cntmprr Hstr n Mnch md th nnncmnt tht thr wr n gssngs n Dch-nr n n f th thr cmps lctd n Grmn prpr (Bchnwld, Rvnsbrck, Brgn-Blsn, Mthssn) . cnnt gt rnd ths fct tht t tk 15 rs t dtrmn ths . Wh s lng ?
Whs flt s t tht th sp md frm Jwsh cdvrs s crd trct str ? Whs flt s t tht th lmpshd md f hmn skn s crd trct str ? s t nt ngh tht ppl, dsprprtntl rpn Jws wr dprtd t ths cncntrtn cmps whr th fcd th ncrsd rsk f cntrctng tphs nd thr dsss
s wll s fcng chtc cndtns drng th lst mnths f th wr drng whch mn dd frm lck f fd nd mdcn ? Wh hs th rght t "dd" trct tls (gs chmbrs) t thr drm ?
Posted by: Joseph | November 28, 2007 2:34 PM
Prfssr Pl Rssnr ws Frnch Rsstnc mmbr. H ws rrstd b th gstp nd snt t th Bchnwld-Dr cmp. H wrt tht hs Frnch cmrds skd hm wh h ws
"fghtng" thm n thr mmrs . H wntd t tll th trth nd n th prcss H xpsd th trct tls nd thr thrs fr wht th wr : frds . N mnt f sffrrng
cn jstf dct !
Posted by: Joseph | November 28, 2007 2:41 PM
"Who has the right to "add" atrocity tales (gas chambers) to their drama?"
History has that right.
When gas chambers and these atrocities have been documented, studied, and verified by countless individuals you lose the ability to try to mitigate the events and the actions perpetrated by the Nazis against Jews.
Posted by: Jesse | November 28, 2007 3:36 PM
Antisemite JM Damon says:
"totalitarian attempts to proscribe opinion are doomed to failure in the age of the Internet."
Welp, unfortunately this works highly against you.
You see, you denialists have no facts, no data to back up your claims. Just like in the case of creationists, the internet has made the ready attainment of facts/data very simple. This means that the tripe you parrot as 'truth' can be quickly and easily proven to be the utter, feckless bullshit that it is. There is no 'Totalitarian Attempt' to silence cretins like you. Rather, there are truths and there are lies and you and your ilk are being exposed as the liars you are, parroting garbage to try to cover up your antisemitism.
Posted by: Jesse | November 28, 2007 3:45 PM
I wonder why we don't see censorship at scienceblogs when ID proponents post comments.
Posted by: antihumanist | November 28, 2007 7:15 PM
I have a running policy of not engaging cranks. However, I do have a sliding scale for enforcement. If there is some hope of improvement in the individual, I might try to bring them around.
When it comes to stupid bigots and holocaust deniers like you and the other worthless motherfuckers who showed up on this thread, I have zero tolerance.
It also is decidedly not censorship. This is my forum. You are free to spout your BS on your own goddamn website, but not under my nose.
Posted by: MarkH | November 28, 2007 7:21 PM
Did you just call me a stupid bigot and holocaust denier, or was that directed at somebody else?
Posted by: antihumanist | November 28, 2007 7:56 PM
Umm... Yes? **DING DING DING*** We have a winner!
There's something else written here... something about if the shoe fits... I can't quite make it out.
Posted by: LanceR | November 28, 2007 8:47 PM
I would have thought that my answers to Jesse's questions would disqualify me.
Posted by: antihumanist | November 28, 2007 8:50 PM
Jesse: Any local VFW guys wouldn’t have been at Treblinka or Auschwitz; unless it’s the Moscow chapter of the VFW you’re going on about.
You might read General Patton’s diaries for references to Jews in German prison camps, both during the war and after 1945, but you wouldn’t find a word about any “holocaust” against the Jews in Churchill’s six-volume History of WWII.
1. Go to your local VFW hall.
2. Talk to the veterans there.
3. Specifically, ask them if any of them saw Treblinka, Dachau, or Auschwitz.
4. Ask them what they saw there.
4a. Ask them if they will ever forget the things and people they saw.
Stop trying to dress up your antisemitism as some sort of quest for truth and meaning.
Posted by: Jesse |
Posted by: Henry Barth | November 28, 2007 10:38 PM
Hmmm, maybe I wasn't paying attention antihumanist, but didn't you basically show up here and say there was no objective truth, people shouldn't get upset about holocaust denial, and then there's that fun quote about how Africans get AIDS because they're stupid. Further, we've learned not to believe the claims of good intentions from people who show up to cast doubt on the holocaust. If it's not outright denial, it's minimization, if it's not minimization, it's nonsense like Irving's claim that Hitler wasn't responsible, or that the Jews deserved it.
Let's see.
holocaust denial - check
bigotry - check
I'm done.
Posted by: MarkH | November 29, 2007 12:07 AM
1. I see no evidence of an objective truth in our universe. Can you show me that such a thing exists?
2. If you disagree with that quote I would love to hear why.
3. Did you know that 60 million people die each year? Tell me why I should care whether or not a specific group of 6 million were killed more than 60 years ago.
Posted by: antihumanist | November 29, 2007 2:14 AM
Joseph needs to review Nizkor's Techniques of Holocaust Denial to see which ones he's parroting.
Really, Holocaust deniers are so dishonest, and they can't even get basic facts right.
For example, there were gas chambers at Dachau. In fact, they still exist. They were used for both delousing and homicidal purposes. However, it was mostly experimental, as Dr. Gutman of Yad Vashem described:
Posted by: Orac | November 29, 2007 10:53 AM
You should care because it's a well constructed teaching narrative that withstands the test of time. In 30 years, maybe sooner, we'll construct the teaching narrative that accompanies Iraq. (The Vietnam/Quagmire narrative was always pretty half-as*ed so it worked for a while, then collapsed under its own internal contradictions.)
We could spend our time participating in the current truth (like Iraq and/or Iran), but there's more depth and richness to reach back into history since history narrated isn't as subjective as the present.
Posted by: Ted | November 29, 2007 11:45 AM
60 million people die each year so you shouldn't care that 6 million were murdered, many tortured before dying? Great point. Millions of women have sex each year, so why should I care about the small number who are raped? Besides, since there's no objective truth, then maybe people actually enjoy torture! I know I must if I'm talking to denialist idiots.
Now that's a well supported argument.
Posted by: Boris | November 29, 2007 12:59 PM
Brs:
Wh shld cr bt th smll nmbr wh r rpd? cr bcs th'r lv.
t s pssbl tht ppl ctll nj bng trtrd nd jst ct lk th'r n pn t fl s. Spkng s hmn wh cn fl pn, ths s prbbl nt th cs bt cn't prv t.
Fr ll f r blstr nd mrl trg ddn't ctll nswr m qstn: Tll m wh shld cr whthr r nt spcfc grp f 6 mlln ppl wr klld mr thn 60 rs g.
[I think we're done talking with this crank too, get lost]
Posted by: antihumanist | November 29, 2007 2:17 PM
Oh wonderful.
Posted by: antihumanist | November 29, 2007 2:49 PM
Go look it up. We're not going to go over it so you can get off on the explanation.
As for soap and lampshades, they are irrelevant. Because George Washington did not chop down a cherry tree you cannot conclude that he was never president. Fine, the Bitch of Buchenwald only collected the skin of tattooed Jews and didn't decorate with it. That makes it better?
Now, fuck off.
Posted by: Boris | November 30, 2007 8:26 AM
Sorry, Mark. I promise not to respond to them anymore.
Posted by: Boris | November 30, 2007 9:53 AM
It's ok Boris, I was away from email for the day.
At this point I'm just deleting anything from them. If they keep it up I'll have them banned from the network. It's no loss.
Don't waste any thought on these individuals.
Posted by: MarkH | November 30, 2007 3:25 PM
Fr sm rsn m cmmnt pprd nrdbl.
llw m t tr nc mr.
Th d nt prsct ppl lck thm p fr rs nd vn kdnp thm crss th tlntc s th dd wth rnst Zndl, Frssn, Grmr Rdlf tc. bcs th r tllng ls.
Th r prsctd bcs th g gnst pwrfl ntrsts, mn, pltcs, rlgn, Jws. Bcs thr cntrbtns t ndrstndng th trth r dngrs!
Th Jws r th rl cntr f th dbt, nd th hlcst s pshd n th nm f th Jws, nd th prsctn f ntllctl dssdnts s wll. Th cnstnt lbbng fr mr rstrctv lws cms drctl frm Jwsh nd Znst crcls.
Th Jws r ls t th cntr n wrld pltcs, thr ntrsts tk p dsprprtnl mnt f ttntn nd rsrcs n th wrld.
Tht's th rl rsn fr th tb!
nd Nck Grffn s std, nt bcs h s 'rcst', bt bcs h s nt t Znst slv, lk th mr sccsfl nt-mmgrtn prts n rp. Ths wh pldg llnc t srl nd thr hl hlcst r frgvn nd cn b ccptd n th pltcl mnstrm.
W hv 'BNP' spprtd gvrnmnt n Dnmrk (fr 6 rs nw) ! (Hv sn th cncntrtn cmps nd th gs chmbrs t? Hv sn th stts flld wth brwnshrts lkng fr frgnrs t trsh?)
r Dnsh Ppls Prt (14% f th vt thrd bggst prt) r ccptd, bcs th prc fr thr vl ntnlsm s tht th spprt srl..
cn rd mr bt sm f m bsltl bhrrnt thghts nd ds nd llgtns f Jwsh rspnsblt fr rstrctns f fr spch n rp nd th S n ths rtcl fr xmpl.
[your comment was unreadable because I don't tolerate holocaust deniers on my forum, go spout your nonsense elsewhere]
Posted by: Balder | December 1, 2007 3:20 AM
You know, in his own odd way antihumanist actually poses an interesting question: why do we care about this, whereas people who believe in, to take an example from earlier in this thread, Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories are just dismissed flat-out as cranks?
Part of it, of course, is that Holocaust deniers have backing by all sorts of scary racist groups. Although, that beings up a point I've often wondered about: why would white supremacists, who freely admit to desiring things like violent racial war, want to put forward the idea that Hitler's Germany was unable to pull off the execution of 6 million Jews? Why do white supremacists wish to deny the Holocaust? Wouldn't embracing it be more their style?
I assume there's been research done on this somewhere, so I'm hoping someone will respond with a pointer or two.
Posted by: Daniel Martin | December 3, 2007 7:03 PM
1. Some things are morally beyond the pale beyond ordinary crankery, stupidity, dishonesty, and propaganda: Holocaust and other genocide denial, incitement to genocide, totalitarian advocacy, truly virulent racism and sexism (not run of the mill schmuckery), scapegoating and libelous conspiracy theories. They are simply indecent. (e.g. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion have been called the death warrant for the Holocaust.) There are all kinds of biomedical conspiracy theories and crankery, but directly telling a pregnant woman not to take HIV inhibitors is beyond the pale. Is there a continuum? Sure. But some things are just monstrous.
2. Holocaust denial simultaneously tries to nullify the crime, slanders the very victims of the crime and their family of being liars, and exonerates the perpetrators. So do 9/11 conspiracy theories - the USA did it to itself, in the minds of some removing sympathy for those Americans who had it coming anyway and by that logic al-Qaeda is innocent and being libeled. That's why they say it didn't happen or someone else did it: defend their heroes and blame the victims, while secretly gloating.
Posted by: Colugo | December 3, 2007 7:43 PM
Gntlmn: Prfssr rn Mr frm Prnctn s Jwsh. f n hs bk h stts tht "srcs fr th std f th gs chmbrs r t nc rr nd nrlbl" , nd pnt t tht th fmgtn chmbr t Dch srvd dl prps bt nl n n xprmntl lvl s Prfssr Gtmn xplns, thn prhps Prfssr Mr hs xmnd th fmgtn chmbr nd th sttmnt th Brtsh pw md wth rspct t hs cnvrstn wth Dr. Rschr nd cncldd tht th vdnc fr ths fmgtn chmbr t hv ctd s gs chmbr s "nrlbl" . gn, pls rmmbr tht ccrdng t wtnsss, hndrds f ppl t n tm wr t b gssd. Thn th wr t b rmvd nd nthr grp wld b hrdd nt th gs chmbr. ll w hv s th "cnfssn" f frmr cmmndnt Hss f schwtz whch ws gvn t Svt nd Plsh cmmnst ntrrgtrs . Hss vn mntnd cmp nmd Wlzk, whch d nt blv n sch cmp xstd. Gntlmn, hv vr rght t blv n mrcls, bt d nt hv th rght t rm r blfs dwn vrn ls's thrt !
Posted by: Joseph | December 4, 2007 11:40 AM