you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Fonched 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

https://img.4plebs.org/boards/tv/image/1533/35/1533357770880.png Along these lines, what are your thoughts on this, Saidit?

Some will also point out that in a multitude of European nations where this is illegal, denial of communist crimes and other world atrocities are too; therefore Holocaust laws are not part of a conspiracy.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Bunch of crying out in pain as he strikes you.

First point is talmudic nonsense, what's the point of questioning something if you're not allowed to come to different conclusion?

Second point is false, it probably refers to that map we all see on Wikipedia. That map is only showing countries where Holocaust denial is banned EXPLICITLY. You can still be prosecuted for denying it in many countries which are not colored red on the map. He says so in the continuation, but he is engaging in talmudic fashion yet again, like equating Holocaust denial and displaying nazi salutes with bestiality and pedophilia (freudian slip?), whereas the correct parallel would be asking why is Armenian genocide denial protected by ECHR and why Holocaust denial isn't.

He also just asserts that Holocaust denial is hate speech towards jews. Many of Holocaust deniers became deniers because they wanted to debunk Holocaust deniers, how would that come out of hatred for the jews? The fact that the truth is perceived by jews as hatred is solely their problem.

[–]Fonched 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

From my first reading I thought that he didn't draw a line between "questioning" and "denial"; I would say their answers need to be compatible with the mainstream narrative in order for the educator to not be punished. I do know for certain just going out and saying "it didn't happen" without any evidence will get you slapped, but I don't know about how scholars on both sides of the debate manage.

I have also not seen anything about Canada's new law extending outside of the Holocaust. Some social networks a few years back banned it a while back in quick succession but I had not heard that any other crimes against humanity fell under this rule as well.

I would like to know how one who was refuting deniers eventually became a revisionist, if any examples exist.

[–]Nombre27[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

He says so in the continuation, but he is engaging in talmudic fashion yet again, like equating Holocaust denial and displaying nazi salutes with bestiality and pedophilia (freudian slip?)

Kind of interesting that whoever wrote that also put holocaust denial as a punishable offense in the same category as calling Muhammad a pedophile or bestiality. Criticizing Islam isn't hate speech and by putting holocaust denial in that same category, this person has unexpectedly given permission for the very critique that they wish to prevent.

x2 on the Talmudic "high verbal IQ" misdirection (gish galloping) that is such a common amongst the tribe when it comes to persuasion. That author had no problem pointing out how targeting vulnerable or minority populations with inciteful rhetoric can be bad (this logic applies to inciting hateful rhetoric to person or group, not just special minorities), but has nothing to say as to what is actually going on in White countries when it comes to which group it is okay to regularly slander with impunity.

That image is like a leftwing meme that uses too much words in order to sound smart, with a goal being misdirection, i.e. if something is said enough times or loud enough then that must make it true.