Holocaust Denial gagging policies...

[Boerseun]

At its root, denying the Holocaust is simply an act of malice. It is an act that begins with: "what is the most offensive thing I could say to Jews?" And it ends with denying the most horrific tragedy that has befallen Jews in recent history. It is a twisted way of saying, "I deny your existence", or "I take pleasure in your tragedy" or "Your culture and history is a lie" or "I am spitting on you and you cannot stop me".

Pyro, I cannot agree with this. This is jumping to conclusions, and being presumptuous. It simply does not follow. You are saying that fundamentally, holocaust denial is malicious - intended to cause harm to others. Fair enough - I'm sure that's the intention in quite a lot of cases (majority or minority of cases I have no idea). But it could also be that instead of trying to hurt other people, denialists are merely trying to protect themselves from the reality of the holocaust. I know - I have done a bit of studying on the matter years ago, and I have had very bad dreams about it for quite some time. In some sense it would have been easier to say it's all a load of bullshit propaganda, and jump at any evidence, however dodgy, that might support the idea that it never happened. Believing that it never happened takes a lot of emotional load off of the casual historian. Nowhere, anywhere, did any bad feelings, hate or even anger towards Jews feature in the picture. In many cases, I'm sure, the denialists probably don't even think about the Jews in coming to the conclusion that the Holocaust never happened. The only thing that they do want, is to know that humanity isn't capable of such a nightmare. It's easier to believe that. The "hate" and "malice" arguments surely hold in lots of cases. But once again, you can't throw a blanket over all cases as being the same. Denying the holocaust is not necessarily an attack on the Jews. Being confronted with the bestial nature of the holocaust, an individual could probably be in a psychological state of denial, considering history, as a self-defence mechanism. And then, yes, you do get the skinheads and neo-nazis who actually do wish harm on the Jews. But once again, it's not exclusive.

Looked at this way, Holocaust Denial may be compared to yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre, or publically spitting on someone, or publically calling someone an obscene epithet or "shooting the finger" at someone.

That doesn't follow, either. You're assuming intent, which, as I described above, is not a given, and not clear-cut in all cases. As a matter of interest, and a bit off-topic, in all schools in my country, the holocaust forms part and parcel of the curriculum. History teachers throw the material at the kids, and let them deal with it in their own way. I have never, in any of the schools in my area, heard of any kids being counselled for trauma after having had to digest those horrible stats and figures on their own. I can believe that a lot of them lost faith in humanity, and a lot of them could turn to fringe holocaust denial theories for mental self-protection. Just a thought. Do you counsel your kids when they learn of the holocaust? Did "Schindler's List" list numbers for therapists in the credits? I'm not joking about this. Holocaust denial might even be a backlash on the insensitive manner in which the material is shown to those who have no past knowledge of the subject matter. And, yes, they are out there. And no, such a backlash of denialism does not include one whit of hate or bad feelings against any Jew.

 

I just think that this issue isn't nearly as simple as just slapping a gagging order on it. I can't support a gagging order, because I am not convinced that each and every instance of holocaust denial is with malicious and hateful intent. I am, however, in full support of a open policy where those denying the holocaust can do so and bring their evidence to the fore. They will be demolished by the weight of evidence in favor of the holocaust, and that will be that. And in future, anybody with a similar denialist bent (you will get them for the next ten thousand years, as every new generation is introduced anew to the horrors of the holocaust) can come to the fore, and look at the evidence both pro and con for himself.

 

You are now expected to believe in the holocaust or go to jail. You are not allowed to even contemplate bringing evidence to the fore that you might believe might prove the holocaust a hoax. This is not how historians operate. History is not determined by court order. I cannot support these gagging policies at all. And being scientists, both professional and amateur, we should agree that the only thing that carries any weight is the evidence. The facts point towards the holocaust, we all know that. And that should be our approach. If you can topple the holocaust with evidence to the contrary, please feel free to do so. I would really appreciate it if somebody could actually prove the holocaust to be a big fat hoax. Because that would really restore a lot of my faith and trust in humanity. Really, I kid you not. But I also don't see how such a feat will make people suddenly run into the streets looking for Jews to kill. I think that bit of gratuitous fear-mongering is completely baseless.

[Pyrotex]

Pyro, I cannot agree with this. This is jumping to conclusions, and being presumptuous. It simply does not follow. You are saying that fundamentally, holocaust denial is malicious - intended to cause harm to others. Fair enough - I'm sure that's the intention in quite a lot of cases (majority or minority of cases I have no idea). But it could also be that instead of trying to hurt other people, denialists are merely trying to protect themselves from the reality of the holocaust. ....

Sorry Boerseun,

but I don't think I'm jumping to anything presumptuous. However academically it may appear to be done, Deniers do what they do NOT out of any sincere belief or rationally derived opinion. None of them. Not even one. Never.

 

They do it for reasons based entirely in political rage, religious rage, racial rage. They do it because they WISH it were true. It's a pure reflection of their hate, contempt and social malcontentiousness. It's just a "F*** YOU!" and nothing more.

 

Boerseun, nobody denies that Germany invaded France and Poland. Nobody denies the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand which triggered WWI. Nobody denies that Napolean invaded Russia. Nobody denies the slaughter of Russians by Stalin (except a few Stalin lovers), or the slaughter of Cambodians by Pol Pot (except a few Pol Pot lovers), or the slaughters in Yugoslavia and Kosovo and Kenya. Think of all the minorities in the Human Race, all the countries, all the historical deeds. How many of them have dedicated, even fanatical groups denying they did what they did, or suffered what they suffered?

 

Uh-uh. Logic or academic opinion plays no role in this. :naughty::naughty::naughty: Let it go.

[Boerseun]

Okay, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

I can imagine people being shocked by the truth of the matter to grasp at any alternative explanation, without hate being involved in any way or sense. I don't think it's a good idea to throw a blanket ban on historical controversies (even imagined ones, like in this case).

 

And I won't say that each and every single individual case is motivated by hate, because I can completely understand why somebody would prefer to believe in the alternative. It's like you getting home and finding your mother all beaten up, and you prefer to believe her story that she walked into the wall because the alternative, that your drunken step-father beat the snot out of her, is simply unthinkable.

 

The fact that you're wrong is unfortunate, and given enough time to consider the evidence you will eventually reach the truth. But you being wrong should not be outlawed.

 

I don't think its as easy as you say it is, though.