On Taking on Holocaust Deniers

[_Res Ipsa]

I’m pretty much a free speech absolutist. Yes, Germany has the right to pass its own laws. But I also have the right to criticize them. I think it’s wrong to jail grandmothers or anyone else for holocaust denial, and I do not support laws that do. I do think it’s appropriate to treat the holocaust with a kind of civil sacredness, just as we do with, for example, Arlington cemetery or the beaches of Normandy. But not to the point of depriving people of their freedom for speaking.

In general I agree with this and I think at the end of the day I wouldn't approach the problem as Germany does.

That said I can definitely see their side of the issue. I'm already deeply embarrassed and concerned about holocaust deniers in our own neck of the woods so I can't imagine the amplification of that one must feel when tackling the problem with all the additional historical baggage that the Germans deal with on the topic.

I also just wanted to chime in to say that I've really appreciated your contributions to the topic. You've been a great example here of how we should respond to disinformation. I've learned a lot and your reading recommendation up thread gave me a ton to chew on, so thanks!

Thanks, Xeno. I learn so much from folks here that it makes my day when someone gets something out of my ramblings.

[_Res Ipsa]

Not singling you out, cp, but this common reaction to these laws bothers me quite a bit. In general, folks have no problem expressing disagreement with other country’s laws.

No worries, RI. I’m fair game here for anyone to single out or use as an example.

I am no fan of restrictions on free speech, either (and noting that Smokey’s reference was to “thought crime”, which is something quite different). I do have to respect the context of laws addressing this, though, as is the typical and accepted condition everywhere. Not all speech can be protected when context is regarded (ex., yelling ‘Fire!’ In a theatre).

Germany’s history imparts certain unusual and nearly unique conditions to the subject of free speech, and folks are certainly free to disagree with some or all of those laws. But that sort of protest is not best manifested by posting denialist tropes, denigrating caricatures and derogatory language aimed specifically at the people who were once subject to enough harm that such restrictions on free speech were deemed necessary in the first place.

Smokey is not protesting this woman’s situation so much as he is chagrined that he cannot promote the worst possible behavior against his fellow citizens, both within that jurisdiction as well as those not even within the borders affected by that law.

I agree with you that there should be limits on free speech, which is why I use the weasel words "pretty much" an absolutist. I can understand and sympathize with the reasons the laws exist. I just think they are wrong. ***shrug***

Smokey doesn't give a crap about that woman. He's using her as a tool to incite hatred against Jews.

[_Chap]

Smokey doesn't give a ____ about that woman. He's using her as a tool to incite hatred against Jews.

Yup. It's like 'Look!! Those Jews even lock up sweet old ladies! How would you like it if the Jews took your granny and threw her into jail?'

[_Maksutov]

Engaging deniers makes them feel powerful and gives them the attention they hunger for.

My advice is to post enough information to make clear to any reasonable person that the denier is without authority and without integrity. That is for the benefit of third party witnesses. Then disengage and ignore.

[_Res Ipsa]

Engaging deniers makes them feel powerful and gives them the attention they hunger for.

My advice is to post enough information to make clear to any reasonable person that the denier is without authority and without integrity. That is for the benefit of third party witnesses. Then disengage and ignore.

Mak, I've gone back and forth in my own mind lots of times on how to respond to holocaust deniers. I've come to the point where I don't really worry about stuff like making them feel powerful or giving them what they want. What I want is two things: force the denier to confront the fact that the evidence that they think supports their claim isn't what they think it is. They won't admit it. They'll huff and puff and bluster and deny. But we've all had that experience -- finding out that something we really believed was true actually wasn't. So that's a little dissonance introduced to the denier's brain. And maybe it will lead somewhere and maybe it won't.

But more important to me, I don't think it's enough to portray the denier as dishonest or as lacking authority. I'm firmly convinced that holocaust denial is simply the most odious flavor of conspiracy theory. And one of the most serious problem we're facing right now is conspiratorial thinking. I don't think that can be addressed by swatting down individual conspiracy theorists or conspiracies. Because the foundation of conspiratorial thinking is the result of things hard wired into our brains by evolution, I think those third-party witnesses need to understand how conspiratorial thinking works, and how in today's infinitely complex world of information, it will lead a person to believe things that are simply false. And harmful.

So, at some point, I intend to use my engagement with Smokey to loop back and apply it to the stuff I said in the OP and more. Once I began to understand that conspiracy theories are all based on the very same pattern of thinking, and involved employing almost exactly the same techniques, it became much easier to spot it in my own thinking and in others' thinking.

So that's my pitch. I don't claim it's the best way to respond, because I don't know what that is. But whatever folks have been doing, it isn't working. So I'll give this a whirl.

[_canpakes]

Yup. It's like 'Look!! Those Jews even lock up sweet old ladies! How would you like it if the Jews took your granny and threw her into jail?'

Meanwhile, the Nazis tossed sweet old ladies and grannies into ovens.

[_huckelberry]

https://www.pbs.org/video/the-open-mind ... rs-part-i/

Hitler's Willing Executioners.

If on is to think of evidence of the holocaust perhaps Nurenberg trial would be a start. But evidence is not some single item to post it is a large collection of documentation as is presented in this book. There are others of course. This book makes a point of looking at context. All of the things leading to the killing are evidence of its reality.
1 the culture of hatred of Jews.
2 the cultivation of that hatred by Nazi propaganda.
3 separation of Jews and cancellation of their civil rights.
4 encouragement of acts of violence against Jews.
5 The killing gets underway in earnest with the invasion of Poland. This is the time for which the book focuses on documentation. This sets the character for what kind of slavery is being established for the Jews.

[_Smokey]

If on [sic] is to think of evidence of the holocaust perhaps Nurenberg trial would be a start.

[_huckelberry]

Smokey, "torture the witness"

It is certainly one of the weakness of any confession that it could have been forced. The end of the war was a violent time when a lot of violent revenge was carried out. I do not know where your speculation comes from but I am aware some individuals were badly treated.

I think that is a good reason to look toward a big picture taking into consideration a variety of evidence. My previous post was about a book which investigates German records of Jew killing in Poland. It reviews what lead up to that. That preparation for killing is strong evidence of the violence explaining the physical evidence, bodies in the camps, which our armies found.

[_Smokey]

Let’s just be clear about what we are talking about: extreme beatings, genital mutilation, torture, and murder.