It's just a Roman salute, says school in 'Nazi' matric photograph furore

[buka001]

HD is a kneejerk nonsense term, attacking just this strawman you are propping up. No one other than actual nazi's actually claims such obvious rubbish.

OK, fair enough. Out of interest can you provide your evidence to substantiate your view of what you think the actual death toll of the Holocaust was?

Which is an example of true meanings being systematically perverted and weaponized, a common deliberate Marxist tactic. It means one thing but gets used in a different way eventually changing the perception of it's meaning and becoming automatically fired propaganda. The technical term is Semantic Warfare.

Strawmen, strawmen everywhere.

EDIT: To add to that there is a difference between denying that something happened and denying the accepted narrative of it, calling both the same thing (denialism) is a effort to deceive.

Can you show how Marxists are doing this? Denialists always claim that the pro-Israel or Zionists are the ones pushing this and playing this tactic. Is Israel now Marxist?

You go on to talk about the Marxist ANC. What do they have to do with this?

We have more factual evidence of the Armenian genocide and headcounts than what we have about the nazi death camps/genocide headcounts.

What happened to the Rwanda genocide ? Pol Pot was also not despised for a white. USA had lunch for a while with Idi Amin. The list of acceptable atrocities have no end but holyhell if a day doesn't go by that I hear something about the holocaust on the internet.

I am still waiting for the world to make the same amount of noise of the Armenian genocide. Oh wait I forgot its only a genocide when enough people decide to care about it or if there is some alternative motive behind acknowledging anything.

Can you show a comparative analysis of this claim? I don't deny the Armenian Genocide. I would like to see your proof that the evidence for the Holocaust is somewhat less?

 

[STS]

Am starting to notice that everything you disagree with is either a marxist plot or leftist spin...

Also notice how he dodges questions where he is directly asked his points of views.

Last night's question, "So Hitler did nothing wrong?" was met with cultural Marxist crickets.

 

[buka001]

Ok, so there was no outright evidence that he lied, the Judge made a judgement call on it and ruled that Irving's deviations from the accepted record were dishonest.

What is your view of Irvings position on the Holocaust.

Do you agree with his interpretation?

Straight up, what do you think are the numbers and why?

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Also notice how he dodges questions where he is directly asked his points of views.

Last night's question, "So Hitler did nothing wrong?" was met with cultural Marxist crickets.

Do you still beat your wife?

Oh, can't answer, huh? HUH!?

INTERESTING.

 

[Cray]

Ok, so there was no outright evidence that he lied, the Judge made a judgement call on it and ruled that Irving's deviations from the accepted record were dishonest.

Probably best to go to the page on the actual case rather than the Hollywood dramatization...

The judge's summary reads as follows...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd#Ruling

Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism...[4][64] therefore the defence of justification succeeds...[5] It follows that there must be judgment for the Defendants

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Probably best to go to the page on the actual case rather than the Hollywood dramatization...

The judge's summary reads as follows...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd#Ruling

There's no difference. My response is as apt regardless. The judge is in fact accusing him of being a Nazi. On the grounds of basing the judgement of deception on ideological reasons.

 

[Cray]

There's no difference. My response is as apt regardless.

So you accept that Irving is actually intentionally dishonest about the holocaust and Hitler, and is a Holocaust denier as per the generally accepted definition?

 

[buka001]

I don't actually have an opinion on the numbers. I am suspicious of any and all counts and at the end of the day it doesn't really matter much. I think it's readily apparent that there are far greater historical atrocities that get far less attention, and that gives me pause when it comes to considering why this one particular atrocity should be seen as the one that sits at the top of the horror pile.

And so long as nobody talks about that particular elephant in the room, I'll continue to dump on everyone who attempts to manipulate my moral compass.

Which of course is reasonable.

The distinction with the Holocaust was the specific, direct targeting of one particular group of people, for no particular reasoning, other than the irrational fears and hatred of them.

An entire industry was set up to carry out their mass murder on an industrialised scale, never before seen, heard or imagined.

That is the reason it receives attention.

Yes, Rwanda Genocide was equally horrific in that one particular group of people was also singled out for extermination, yet not through an industrialised and specific manner.

Other genocides have also taken place, but not at the level of intensity, directness and co-ordination that the Nazis achieved.

That is the message that the remembrance of the Holocaust shows. Allowing hatred to propagate through society in the way the Nazis achieved is central to this.

 

[Knyro]

Why are you guys still arguing with this take-ridiculous-and-unwillable-bets tinfoil hat crackpot?

An exercise in futility if I've ever seen one.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Which of course is reasonable.

The distinction with the Holocaust was the specific, direct targeting of one particular group of people, for no particular reasoning, other than the irrational fears and hatred of them.

Um, Stalin's wiping out of the Kulaks/Holodomor checks all those boxes.

An entire industry was set up to carry out their mass murder on an industrialised scale, never before seen, heard or imagined.

That is the reason it receives attention.

So it's the efficiency that's bothersome?

 

[Gingerbeardman]

So you accept that Irving is actually intentionally dishonest about the holocaust and Hitler, and is a Holocaust denier as per the generally accepted definition?

You probably want to address my edit.

 

[STS]

Do you still beat your wife?

Oh, can't answer, huh? HUH!?

INTERESTING.

I don't have a wife, nice deflection

 

[Gingerbeardman]

I don't have a wife, nice deflection

It's not a deflection, it's demonstrating that your loaded questions are going to get ignored, because it's tiresome trying to talk to someone who claims he's pro-life while he's actually pro-choice and so on. The charitable take is that you're hopelessly confused, but even then, you fly off the handle in so many directions that all your posts amount to is a demand to virtue signal to whatever demented virtuality you adhere to.

/pass

 

[buka001]

Um, Stalin's wiping out of the Kulaks/Holodomor checks all those boxes.


So it's the efficiency that's bothersome?

Yes, it was the fact the the government carried out a direct program, set up infrastructure with the sole purpose of carrying out mass murder of one specific group of people.

Unprecedented. No other genocide organised itself, set up governmental departments with reporting structures, record keeping, policies, procedures and so forth, like the Nazis did.

That is the issue.

 

[Cray]

There's no difference. My response is as apt regardless. The judge is in fact accusing him of being a Nazi. On the grounds of basing the judgement of deception on ideological reasons.

You probably want to address my edit.

Nope, am good.

it is my conclusion that no objective, fair-minded historian would have serious cause to doubt that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and that they were operated on a substantial scale to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews,"[61] and "it follows that it is my conclusion that Irving's denials of these propositions were contrary to the evidence."[3] Furthermore, "the allegation that Irving is a racist is also established."[62]

You are welcome to read up more on his delightful history but am done with this....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Nope, am good.



You are welcome to read up more on his delightful history but am done with this....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving

Right, he can't be fair minded and objective, the only reason he could have come to another conclusion is that he had an ideological reason. Ergo, he's a holocaust denier because he's a Nazi.

Or are you now going to argue that only card carrying members can be called Nazis?

let me remind you:

Holocaust denialism as it's accepted today is not outright denial of the holocaust occuring, it includes a range of typical statements about the holocaust and it's not only Nazi's who make them.

David Irving is a holocaust denier who is not a Nazi (actually was a respected Historian) who engaged in all three...
Most notably he claimed that Hitler knew nothing about the final solution.

 

[STS]

It's not a deflection, it's demonstrating that your loaded questions are going to get ignored, because it's tiresome trying to talk to someone who claims he's pro-life while he's actually pro-choice and so on. The charitable take is that you're hopelessly confused, but even then, you fly off the handle in so many directions that all your posts amount to is a demand to virtue signal to whatever demented virtuality you adhere to.

/pass

In the context of the discussion we had last night, you built the entire conversation up until the point of me asking the question. You didn't answer it outright because it was too convenient for you to skirt around the answer. So what is it going to be, integrity to be so honest that you CAN'T answer or integrity to at least answer with a bs story?

I am pro-life for kids because I believe in human potential and that with enough opportunities, people can be something great. I am also pro-death penalty that if someone is so evil, it is better to remove them from existence than waste another second an cent on them. There is a grey area inbetween these two beliefs that the world owes us nothing and wecan't control what happens, only how we react.

So no need to answer, just remember how you avoided the question because the truth was too inconvenient for you and your agenda

 

[Gingerbeardman]

In the context of the discussion we had last night, you built the entire conversation up until the point of me asking the question. You didn't answer it outright because it was too convenient for you to skirt around the answer. So what is it going to be, integrity to be so honest that you CAN'T answer or integrity to at least answer with a bs story?

I am pro-life for kids because I believe in human potential and that with enough opportunities, people can be something great. I am also pro-death penalty that if someone is so evil, it is better to remove them from existence than waste another second an cent on them. There is a grey area inbetween these two beliefs that the world owes us nothing and wecan't control what happens, only how we react.

You claimed you were pro-life in the context of having right wing beliefs. There's only one context in which being pro-life can be considered to be a right wing belief, and that's the one area you are actually pro-choice on.

So I don't know wtf is going on in your head, but I want no part of it. Insofar as I respond to you, it's merely to entertain myself and to draw your crazy to the attention of others.

So no need to answer, just remember how you avoided the question because the truth was too inconvenient for you and your agenda

Kafka sends his regards.

 

[Cray]

Right, he can't be fair minded and objective, the only reason he could have come to another conclusion is that he had an ideological reason. Ergo, he's a holocaust denier because he's a Nazi.

He is a holocaust denier because he willfully miss-represents the evidence to deny certain established facts about the holocaust. His motivation for doing it is irrelevant.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

He is a holocaust denier because he miss-represents the evidence and hand to deny certain established facts about the holocaust. His motivation for doing it is irrelevant.

Except for the fact that the judgement you invoked to declare him a holocaust denier did so because of his ideological motivations. What non-Nazi ideological motivations would drive someone to deny the holocaust?