Forumer Chat Thread

[Lumpy]

While the laws are pretty dumb, it's wrong to thing of them as "laws against having the wrong opinion". They're moreso "laws against denying historical fact, in particular a historical fact which had an awful effect on our country and many other countries". It'd be like if there was a law in America about denying that 9/11 happened, only what happened was literally thousands of times worse than 9/11.

1. The holocaust never happened. The jews were a hologram.
2. Most revisionists just want to re-examine the numbers, but are prohibited from doing so by law. It's not like it's any secret that the Allies, particularly the Soviets, wanted to stick everything they could to the Germans. They used to claim that every camp was a death camp, that they were making furniture and soap out of the bodies of Jews. That they were shrinking their heads. The original claimed death toll at Auschwitz alone used to be 4 million. It's been open knowledge for a few decades now that the soviets doctored many photos they had of the camps. Considering the sheer amount of propaganda that every major nation was putting out at the time, and considering just how much they've gotten wrong about the holocaust already, it's completely reasonable for people to be a bit wary in accepting the number they are often legally obligated to accept.

 

[Deleted member 13]

2. Most revisionists just want to re-examine the numbers, but are prohibited from doing so by law. It's not like it's any secret that the Allies, particularly the Soviets, wanted to stick everything they could to the Germans. They used to claim that every camp was a death camp, that they were making furniture and soap out of the bodies of Jews. That they were shrinking their heads. The original claimed death toll at Auschwitz alone used to be 4 million. It's been open knowledge for a few decades now that the soviets doctored many photos they had of the camps. Considering the sheer amount of propaganda that every major nation was putting out at the time, and considering just how much they've gotten wrong about the holocaust already, it's completely reasonable for people to be a bit wary in accepting the number they are often legally obligated to accept.

Yep, there's nothing fishy or reactionary about suggesting that massive amounts of evidence were fabricated in the interest of creating a "false" image of Jews as victims. No sir, just totally normal skepticism and academic curiosity.

 

[Dunsparce]

What is it with libtards and trying to turn words into insults? I think it started with the word "fascist," feminists use "MRA" as a bad word for non-feminists, and now you're trying to use "reactionary" as a bad word for... what? people you disagree with?

According to Google, Reactionary means 'a person or set of views opposing political or social liberalization or reform'

Then I guess I'm a reactionary. Which means I'm like Hitler, but even Hitler cared about Germany, or something.

 

[Deleted member 13]

Being a reactionary makes you stupid and narrow-minded.

Reactionaries have always (and will always) be the people who make society suck. They were the people who opposed democracy, they were the people who opposed the abolition of slavery, they were the people who opposed the development of modern medicine, they were the people who opposed the scientific method, they were the people who opposed women's suffrage, they were the people who opposed the civil rights movement, and, in recent times, they're the people who oppose things like socialized medicine and marriage equality.

And no, I'm not saying all change is good. But, I'm certainly saying all stagnation is bad. Traditionalism, social Darwinism, nationalism, racism and organized religion are cancerous blights holding back humanity from self-actualization, and I have no problem using the catch-all term "reactionary" as an insult for such mentalities and institutions.

 

[Lumpy]

Yep, there's nothing fishy or reactionary about suggesting that massive amounts of evidence were fabricated in the interest of creating a "false" image of Jews as victims. No sir, just totally normal skepticism and academic curiosity.

You mean like the declassified KGB documents and photos showing the fetish the Soviets had for photo manipulation? Or the shrunken heads and human skin lampshades Patton paraded in front of the German people, that no modern historian believes were real? Or the footage, gas chambers and prisoner accounts from "death" camps later determined to be simply labour camps?

Nope, everything Germany's enemies said must be 100% accurate and truthful. Ignore all the evidence that shows otherwise. If you don't agree, you must be a Jew-hating Nazi Libertarian Fascist Republican and deserve to be in jail.

Being a reactionary makes you stupid and narrow-minded.

Reactionaries have always (and will always) be the people who make society suck. They were the people who opposed democracy, they were the people who opposed the abolition of slavery, they were the people who opposed the development of modern medicine, they were the people who opposed the scientific method, they were the people who opposed women's suffrage, they were the people who opposed the civil rights movement, and, in recent times, they're the people who oppose things like socialized medicine and marriage equality.

And no, I'm not saying all change is good. But, I'm certainly saying all stagnation is bad. Traditionalism, social Darwinism, nationalism, racism and organized religion are cancerous blights holding back humanity from self-actualization, and I have no problem using the catch-all term "reactionary" as an insult for such mentalities and institutions.

So you are literally saying your definition of a reactionary is someone you disagree with?

 

[Deleted member 13]

You mean like the declassified KGB documents and photos showing the fetish the Soviets had for photo manipulation? Or the shrunken heads and human skin lampshades Patton paraded in front of the German people, that no modern historian believes were real? Or the footage, gas chambers and prisoner accounts from "death" camps later determined to be simply labour camps?

Nope, everything Germany's enemies said must be 100% accurate and truthful. Ignore all the evidence that shows otherwise. If you don't agree, you must be a Jew-hating Nazi Libertarian Fascist Republican and deserve to be in jail.

So, what's the motivation? Why do you think the vast majority of academia is trying to "suppress the truth" of the Holocaust (i.e., that far fewer people died than the official accounts and that none of these deaths were due to death camps)? Can you actually give a semblance of a rational explanation for why so many credible people are spreading misinformation about something that happened seventy fucking years ago?

While you're at it, maybe you could give some examples of credible, knowledgeable academics who give a radically different account of the Holocaust than the official documentation. I mean, there's plenty of renowned revisionists who have no ties to extreme conservatism or antisemitism, right? It's not like most revisionist theories are trying to promote some sort of horrid agenda (usually "race realism"), right? I'm sure they're all just well-intentioned historians with no ulterior motive.

So you are literally saying your definition of a reactionary is someone you disagree with?

No, I'm using the definition of reactionary. It's a word, you know.

 

[Dunsparce]

Traditionalism, social Darwinism, nationalism, racism and organized religion are cancerous blights holding back humanity from self-actualization, and I have no problem using the catch-all term "reactionary" as an insult for such mentalities and institutions.

There you go again using "things I disagree with" as insults. Traditionalism, Social Darwinism and Nationalism are all things I definitely support. Racism, not so much, though the various races don't seem to be doing much to prove the racists wrong. As for organized religion, well that kinda depends on the religion.

Islam holds humanity back without a doubt, and all those eastern religions that say we should just sorta give up and go with the flow don't help much either. Christians have probably done the most to push the world forward, at least after the Middle Ages. While I'm an Atheist myself, I don't think a secular society is gonna have much better results.

By the way, how the hell can you say that Social Darwinism inhibits human progress in any way? The whole idea is to prevent inferior people from reproducing, so that the next generation is superior to the last. All you need is the correct definition of "inferior". God help us if you decide to support Social Darwinism, 'cause you would just say that inferior people are people you disagree with.

So, what's the motivation? Why do you think the vast majority of academia is trying to "suppress the truth" of the Holocaust (i.e., that far fewer people died than the official accounts and that none of these deaths were due to death camps)? Can you actually give a semblance of a rational explanation for why so many credible people are spreading misinformation about something that happened seventy fucking years ago?

Who say's they're doing it intentionally? It make far more sense for one person lie, and then everyone to spread it because they believed it.

No, I'm using the definition of reactionary. It's a word, you know.

No you're not. You literally said that you're using it as a catch all term for shit you disagree with, as opposed to the actual definition.

 

[Lumpy]

So, what's the motivation? Why do you think the vast majority of academia is trying to "suppress the truth" of the Holocaust (i.e., that far fewer people died than the official accounts and that none of these deaths were due to death camps)? Can you actually give a semblance of a rational explanation for why so many credible people are spreading misinformation about something that happened seventy fucking years ago?

Is that what you think the truth of the holocaust is? Because I can't really figure out who you're quoting. As for the people that spread misinformation, I'd imagine it'd be because they don't think it's misinformation. Why would they? Propaganda was produced in droves, evidence was forged or doctored, attempting to debunk the official narrative was criminalized. Same reason people have believed in and spread the "blight" of organized religion for so long. Same reason they believed in the shrunken heads for so long.

While you're at it, maybe you could give some examples of credible, knowledgeable academics who give a radically different account of the Holocaust than the official documentation. I mean, there's plenty of renowned revisionists who have no ties to extreme conservatism or antisemitism, right? It's not like most revisionist theories are trying to promote some sort of horrid agenda (usually "race realism"), right? I'm sure they're all just well-intentioned historians with no ulterior motive.

I'm not sure. What relevance does that have? If all revisionists are anti-semitic, and revisionists are the ones to reveal the faults with the original death toll at Auschwitz or the myth of the Jew-fat soap, why would it make them any less right?

 

[Deleted member 13]

Snip.

If anyone wants living proof of my assertion that reactionaries are disgusting human beings who actively damage civilization, look no further.

Is that what you think the truth of the holocaust is? Because I can't really figure out who you're quoting. As for the people that spread misinformation, I'd imagine it'd be because they don't think it's misinformation. Why would they? Propaganda was produced in droves, evidence was forged or doctored, attempting to debunk the official narrative was criminalized. Same reason people have believed in and spread the "blight" of organized religion for so long. Same reason they believed in the shrunken heads for so long.

I believe that, regardless of the exact numbers, there was an extensive program in 1940's Nazi Germany working towards the end goal of the extermination of Jewish (and many other groups of) people who lived in German territories. I believe that atrocities were committed as a result of this program and that a lot of innocent people lost their lives. Since it's a well-documented historical fact that the Nazi regime was highly antisemitic and had a general intolerance of these various "substandard" people, I have no difficult believing that such a program existed.

If you can offer compelling evidence that my views are incorrect, let me hear it.

I'm not sure. What relevance does that have? If all revisionists are anti-semitic, and revisionists are the ones to reveal the faults with the original death toll at Auschwitz or the myth of the Jew-fat soap, why would it make them any less right?

If revisionists are generally terrible people with an ulterior motive, it opens up the valid question of how legitimate their claims and arguments are.

 

[Lumpy]

If anyone wants living proof of my assertion that jews are disgusting human beings who actively damage civilization, look no further.

So reactionaries aren't just people you disagree with, but you know that I, who has not stated a single personal opinion, am one?

I believe that, regardless of the exact numbers, there was an extensive program in 1940's Nazi Germany working towards the end goal of the extermination of Jewish (and many other groups of) people who lived in German territories. I believe that atrocities were committed as a result of this program and that a lot of innocent people lost their lives. Since it's a well-documented historical fact that the Nazi regime was highly antisemitic and had a general intolerance of these various "substandard" people, I have no difficult believing that such a program existed.

If you can offer compelling evidence that my views are incorrect, let me hear it.

Why should I? It wouldn't change any of the previous facts I've mentioned.

If revisionists are generally terrible people with an ulterior motive, it opens up the valid question of how legitimate their claims and arguments are.

How can someone that supposedly supports the scientific method think that claims should only be questioned based on the nature of the claimant? All claims and arguments should be questioned indiscriminately. You kind of sound like a reactionary right now.

 

[Deleted member 13]

So reactionaries aren't just people you disagree with, but you know that I, who has not stated a single personal opinion, am one?

Sorry, that quote was in regard to Dunsparce's post. He's the only person here I'm comfortable insulting like that, because I know he gives literally zero fucks.

Why should I? It wouldn't change any of the previous facts I've mentioned.

Your facts are circumstantial. Since evidence has been fabricated, you argue that the existing evidence probably is fabricated, which isn't very sound.

How can someone that supposedly supports the scientific method think that claims should only be questioned based on the nature of the claimant? All claims and arguments should be questioned indiscriminately. You kind of sound like a reactionary right now.

They shouldn't only be judged by the person making the argument, but I don't think it's unscientific to question the reliability of an argument's source.

 

[Lumpy]

Your facts are circumstantial. Since evidence has been fabricated, you argue that the existing evidence probably is fabricated, which isn't very sound.

My only argument is that it's perfectly reasonable to feel that way. If a man was on trial for some crime, and it was revealed that a good portion of evidence against him was forged by the prosecution, do you think it would be fair to say "Well, that's no reason to think anything else was faked."

They shouldn't only be judged by the person making the argument, but I don't think it's unscientific to question the reliability of an argument's source.

But you find no reason to question the reliability of sources that were known to forge evidence in what was pretty much the golden age of propaganda?

 

[Chickenspleen]

So I just found out recently that Eggo makes premade pancakes. It just seems so unnatural to me.

 

[Deleted member 13]

My only argument is that it's perfectly reasonable to feel that way. If a man was on trial for some crime, and it was revealed that a good portion of evidence against him was forged by the prosecution, do you think it would be fair to say "Well, that's no reason to think anything else was faked."

I don't deny that it's a possibility; I just question the idea that a massive hoax was capable of escaping the painstaking scrutiny of virtually every credible historian and WW2 academic researcher since the 1940's.

But you find no reason to question the reliability of sources that were known to forge evidence in what was pretty much the golden age of propaganda?

Well, it depends. I'm fine with considering the idea that information was exaggerated, but when people make claims that death camps didn't exist or that the Holocaust wasn't intended as an eventual extermination program, I find that a little far-fetched.

So I just found out recently that Eggo makes premade pancakes. It just seems so unnatural to me.

Why would they even...why? They do understand that waffles > pancakes, right?

 

[Ibix]

While the laws are pretty dumb, it's wrong to thing of them as "laws against having the wrong opinion". They're moreso "laws against denying historical fact, in particular a historical fact which had an awful effect on our country and many other countries". It'd be like if there was a law in America about denying that 9/11 happened, only what happened was literally thousands of times worse than 9/11.

It doesn't matter how severely incorrect your opinion is, nor the implications it may bring; it's still an opinion like any other. If a law is placed saying 'you can't say x' it is trying to silence your opinion. it wants you to conform to an opinion not on the government blacklist or to shut your mouth. When the law comes to restricting speech it doesn't give a shit about truth, the purpose is simply to stop people saying things the government doesn't want them to say.

 

[Tirin]

The obvious thing to do, then, is not have such shitty opinions.

 

[Colonel Thunder]

So I just found out recently that Eggo makes premade pancakes. It just seems so unnatural to me.

waaaaat

 

[Tolvan]

Did you guys know that Eggo premade pancakes were the real cause of the Holocaust?

 

[The Hound]

Waffles > Pancakes

 

[Ibix]

The obvious thing to do, then, is not have such shitty opinions.

The problem is the same power used by government in this instance can easily be applied to anything else. Like in Sweden there is the obvious immigration issues that has multiple different angles and potential solutions, but then bureaucrats pass a law that limits discussion on the basis of 'hate speech' despite the fact that countries like Sweden have very few people who even have a blip on the scale of actual racism. So you can't even argue it as just a shitty opinion if that is your criteria for state censorship of human thought is to be somehow justified. It turns out the government isn't always going to be your best friend looking out for you and your mates best interests, there are times it has to have some reasonable limitations, such as say when you're making a legitimate threat of physical violence against a person or group, not you being a big meanie or saying only 5,999,998 Jews died during the September 11th attacks on Pearl Harbor.