4 ms·

Very very weird reasoning. Holocaust denial is banned because it amounts to hate speech. Creationism is dumb, but not hate speech. Also, there is no thoughtcr

Very very weird reasoning. Holocaust denial is banned because it amounts to hate speech. Creationism is dumb, but not hate speech. Also, there is no thoughtcrime.

tomp 11y ago
Now you're just making stuff up. How is saying "Hitler didn't specifically target Jews" hate speech? I used to think it was just dumb, but now I'm not so sure any more. Obviously it's not thoughtcrime, but it's illegal to even discuss it, not only to publish books about it.
- Mithaldu 11y ago
  > How is saying "Hitler didn't specifically target Jews" hate speech? Simply put, because it is functionally identical to saying "the victims were liars on a humongous scale", with all effects that will have on an audience. > it's illegal to even discuss it Paragraph?
  - tomp 11y ago
    Which is exactly exvivalent as saying "those who believe in creationism are liars on a massive scale". Again, how is that hate speech?
    - Mithaldu 11y ago
      It is not equivalent. Holocaust victims have described things that actually happened to them or their families, they are claiming things as historic fact. It is absolutely possible, and very cruel, to call them liars. Scientists advocating the theory of evolution are 100% aware that it is a theory. The word itself includes an understanding and acknowledgement of it not being fact, but a theory. Unless you try to claim them believing in their theory is a lie, you cannot call them liars, since they are not proposing facts. Further, you ignore the part about the effects it has on the audience. Making other people believe that jews and other holocaust victims have successfully perpetrated a lie about "their race" across decades, makes them more likely to be radicalized and thus more likely to lash out against "others". Do note how in Germany even today fire-bombings against residences of foreigners and particularly refugees occur particularly in the german regions with higher-than-average occurences of neo nazis. Oh, lest i forget: > it's illegal to even discuss it Paragraph?
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - tomp 11y ago
        > Holocaust victims have described things that actually happened to them or their families, they are claiming things as historic fact. It is absolutely possible, and very cruel, to call them liars. Ok, let's use a different example then. It's not illegal to say that Stalin was a good man than never harmed anyone, even though it's incredibly wrong (Stalin killed possibly even more people than Hitler), and equally disrespectful (assuming that at least some of the Stalin's victims or their relatives survived). Why the difference? > Scientists advocating the theory of evolution are 100% aware that it is a theory Wow. I wouldn't think that as someone who objects denying the holocaust would use exactly the most stupid argument used by those who deny evolution. It's called a theory not because scientists don't think evolution is a fact, but because it's an explanation of how things happen. Evolution is a fact, to the same extent that gravity is a fact (i.e. the prediction than an apple will fall down if your release it) - it might be wrong e.g. if we live in the Matrix, but then all of the reality is "wrong". Even with gravity, you have gravity (things fall) and the theory of gravity (a longer explanation why things fall). Edit: I'm not sure what you're asking with "Paragraph?"... Do you mean "Source?"?
        Mithaldu 11y ago
        > Why the difference? Because even if there are "Stalin deniers", their numbers are not remotely large enough to have an appreciable effect. > Evolution I disagree, but am happy to agree to disagree. Regardless of whom of us is correct on that count, there remains the fact that denial of the theory of evolution is unlikely to successfully radicalize an appreciable amount of people. > Edit: I'm not sure what you're asking with "Paragraph?"... Do you mean "Source?"? Yes, which paragraph of law forbids discussion of denial of holocaust?
        tomp 11y ago
        > I disagree, but am happy to agree to disagree. Just to be clear, you disagree with a fact that follows from very simple assumptions just by applying a few very simple steps of logical reasoning, yet you accept as dogmatic (i.e. authorative) truth a historical (i.e. unrepeatable and illogical) fact that you never witnessed yourself and that many people claim is false? Interesting. Edit: Or, maybe you don't disagree that evolution is happening, just that it happened (i.e. that the current species were created by evolution)? I guess that's the other option, which would be less inconsistent with logic. > Regardless of whom of us is correct on that count, there remains the fact that denial of the theory of evolution is unlikely to successfully radicalize an appreciable amount of people. Well, given that holocaust denial is legal in the US, I think it's pretty safe to say that it's a fact that it's unlikely to successfully radicalize an appreciable amount of people. > Yes, which paragraph of law forbids discussion of denial of holocaust? I don't know, but why don't you check Wikipedia (a more raliable source) instead of relying on me (a completely unreliable, potentially lying, source)?
Asbostos 11y ago
How is it hate speech? Are there people who would start killing Jews if they discovered it didn't really happen? Serious question, maybe Germany has people who are ready to commit violence but are held back by the thought that the holocaust probably happened? I can't think of the chain of causation from saying "It didn't happen" to someone killing someone else. The closest I can find on Wikipedia's definition of hate speech is "...disparages ... a protected individual or group." Who is that group? Is it "people who believe the holocaust happened"? Surely belief in an arbitrary claim doesn't count for defining a "protected individual or group". Is the group Jews? How does it harm Jews?
- Mithaldu 11y ago
  See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10770153 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10770153
- fsloth 11y ago
  Genocide denial is extremely insulting to the victims and the survivors. Jews have been murdered in europe for centuries as a vent for fear and political impotence. We've had enough. The fact that the germany that produced so much culture and science was the culprit of the last genocide in western europe is an absolute horror on so many scales. Yes, the horrors went on elsewhere but the only way for us as a species to move ahead of our bloodspattered history is to take a stand against fear and brutalism. whitewashing history is a dangerous thing because it gives the signal that political leadership could have a way to escape history's judgement. In essence, it's a matter of accountability that we must uphold vigorously.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    >Genocide denial is extremely insulting to the victims and the survivors. And? Nobody here denies that. But that is no reason to punish denialists. Just ostracize them from society.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      Damaging untruths are widely punished, either as civil offenses, criminal offenses, or both, in the US and elsewhere; countries differ in details of where the burden of proof lies in truth/untruth of harmful statements, what the standard of proof required is, what degree and kind of harms are covered, and whether and how those kind of rules vary for different categories of harmful statements. In general, these punishments reflect the common belief that infliction of harm without consent of the harmed is improper, and warrants either punishment or compensation or both. And, anyway, ostracism is a punishment (historically viewed as a fairly severe one.)
littletimmy 11y ago
How does it necessarily amount to hate speech? One could deny the holocaust, for example, because one is a solipsist and believes that no humans apart from one exist. Since every other human, and by corollary the jews, are solely a figment of one's imagination, no one was ever killed, which means as a corollary there was no holocaust. What, you're going to ban solipsism now?
- Mithaldu 11y ago
  Please read the conversation below.
  - littletimmy 11y ago
    I don't see how it connects to what I've said.
    - Mithaldu 11y ago
      You asked "How does it necessarily amount to hate speech?" In it i attempt to answer that question. The rest of your post really does not bear much more addressing other than that "holocaust denial" has a range of forms, and what you described does not fall under it.
      - littletimmy 11y ago
        Despite the fact that I present a straightforward way to deny the holocaust without having any hate speech in it? You seem to be assuming your conclusions.
        Mithaldu 11y ago
        I'm saying that the scenario you proposed does not fall under the laws (particularly of my own country) that govern restrictions regarding holocaust denial. Feel free to peruse them to see if you agree with me on that: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1241 http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg... http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1703 http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg... http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1712 http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg...

Very very weird reasoning. Holocaust denial is banned because it amounts to hate speech. Creationism is dumb, but not hate speech. Also, there is no thoughtcrime.

tomp 11y ago

Now you're just making stuff up. How is saying "Hitler didn't specifically target Jews" hate speech? I used to think it was just dumb, but now I'm not so sure any more. Obviously it's not thoughtcrime, but it's illegal to even discuss it, not only to publish books about it.

Mithaldu 11y ago
> How is saying "Hitler didn't specifically target Jews" hate speech? Simply put, because it is functionally identical to saying "the victims were liars on a humongous scale", with all effects that will have on an audience. > it's illegal to even discuss it Paragraph?
- tomp 11y ago
  Which is exactly exvivalent as saying "those who believe in creationism are liars on a massive scale". Again, how is that hate speech?
  - Mithaldu 11y ago
    It is not equivalent. Holocaust victims have described things that actually happened to them or their families, they are claiming things as historic fact. It is absolutely possible, and very cruel, to call them liars. Scientists advocating the theory of evolution are 100% aware that it is a theory. The word itself includes an understanding and acknowledgement of it not being fact, but a theory. Unless you try to claim them believing in their theory is a lie, you cannot call them liars, since they are not proposing facts. Further, you ignore the part about the effects it has on the audience. Making other people believe that jews and other holocaust victims have successfully perpetrated a lie about "their race" across decades, makes them more likely to be radicalized and thus more likely to lash out against "others". Do note how in Germany even today fire-bombings against residences of foreigners and particularly refugees occur particularly in the german regions with higher-than-average occurences of neo nazis. Oh, lest i forget: > it's illegal to even discuss it Paragraph?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - tomp 11y ago
      > Holocaust victims have described things that actually happened to them or their families, they are claiming things as historic fact. It is absolutely possible, and very cruel, to call them liars. Ok, let's use a different example then. It's not illegal to say that Stalin was a good man than never harmed anyone, even though it's incredibly wrong (Stalin killed possibly even more people than Hitler), and equally disrespectful (assuming that at least some of the Stalin's victims or their relatives survived). Why the difference? > Scientists advocating the theory of evolution are 100% aware that it is a theory Wow. I wouldn't think that as someone who objects denying the holocaust would use exactly the most stupid argument used by those who deny evolution. It's called a theory not because scientists don't think evolution is a fact, but because it's an explanation of how things happen. Evolution is a fact, to the same extent that gravity is a fact (i.e. the prediction than an apple will fall down if your release it) - it might be wrong e.g. if we live in the Matrix, but then all of the reality is "wrong". Even with gravity, you have gravity (things fall) and the theory of gravity (a longer explanation why things fall). Edit: I'm not sure what you're asking with "Paragraph?"... Do you mean "Source?"?
      - Mithaldu 11y ago
        > Why the difference? Because even if there are "Stalin deniers", their numbers are not remotely large enough to have an appreciable effect. > Evolution I disagree, but am happy to agree to disagree. Regardless of whom of us is correct on that count, there remains the fact that denial of the theory of evolution is unlikely to successfully radicalize an appreciable amount of people. > Edit: I'm not sure what you're asking with "Paragraph?"... Do you mean "Source?"? Yes, which paragraph of law forbids discussion of denial of holocaust?
        tomp 11y ago
        > I disagree, but am happy to agree to disagree. Just to be clear, you disagree with a fact that follows from very simple assumptions just by applying a few very simple steps of logical reasoning, yet you accept as dogmatic (i.e. authorative) truth a historical (i.e. unrepeatable and illogical) fact that you never witnessed yourself and that many people claim is false? Interesting. Edit: Or, maybe you don't disagree that evolution is happening, just that it happened (i.e. that the current species were created by evolution)? I guess that's the other option, which would be less inconsistent with logic. > Regardless of whom of us is correct on that count, there remains the fact that denial of the theory of evolution is unlikely to successfully radicalize an appreciable amount of people. Well, given that holocaust denial is legal in the US, I think it's pretty safe to say that it's a fact that it's unlikely to successfully radicalize an appreciable amount of people. > Yes, which paragraph of law forbids discussion of denial of holocaust? I don't know, but why don't you check Wikipedia (a more raliable source) instead of relying on me (a completely unreliable, potentially lying, source)?

Asbostos 11y ago

How is it hate speech? Are there people who would start killing Jews if they discovered it didn't really happen? Serious question, maybe Germany has people who are ready to commit violence but are held back by the thought that the holocaust probably happened? I can't think of the chain of causation from saying "It didn't happen" to someone killing someone else. The closest I can find on Wikipedia's definition of hate speech is "...disparages ... a protected individual or group." Who is that group? Is it "people who believe the holocaust happened"? Surely belief in an arbitrary claim doesn't count for defining a "protected individual or group". Is the group Jews? How does it harm Jews?

Mithaldu 11y ago
See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10770153 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10770153
fsloth 11y ago
Genocide denial is extremely insulting to the victims and the survivors. Jews have been murdered in europe for centuries as a vent for fear and political impotence. We've had enough. The fact that the germany that produced so much culture and science was the culprit of the last genocide in western europe is an absolute horror on so many scales. Yes, the horrors went on elsewhere but the only way for us as a species to move ahead of our bloodspattered history is to take a stand against fear and brutalism. whitewashing history is a dangerous thing because it gives the signal that political leadership could have a way to escape history's judgement. In essence, it's a matter of accountability that we must uphold vigorously.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  >Genocide denial is extremely insulting to the victims and the survivors. And? Nobody here denies that. But that is no reason to punish denialists. Just ostracize them from society.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    Damaging untruths are widely punished, either as civil offenses, criminal offenses, or both, in the US and elsewhere; countries differ in details of where the burden of proof lies in truth/untruth of harmful statements, what the standard of proof required is, what degree and kind of harms are covered, and whether and how those kind of rules vary for different categories of harmful statements. In general, these punishments reflect the common belief that infliction of harm without consent of the harmed is improper, and warrants either punishment or compensation or both. And, anyway, ostracism is a punishment (historically viewed as a fairly severe one.)

littletimmy 11y ago

How does it necessarily amount to hate speech? One could deny the holocaust, for example, because one is a solipsist and believes that no humans apart from one exist. Since every other human, and by corollary the jews, are solely a figment of one's imagination, no one was ever killed, which means as a corollary there was no holocaust. What, you're going to ban solipsism now?

Mithaldu 11y ago
Please read the conversation below.
- littletimmy 11y ago
  I don't see how it connects to what I've said.
  - Mithaldu 11y ago
    You asked "How does it necessarily amount to hate speech?" In it i attempt to answer that question. The rest of your post really does not bear much more addressing other than that "holocaust denial" has a range of forms, and what you described does not fall under it.
    - littletimmy 11y ago
      Despite the fact that I present a straightforward way to deny the holocaust without having any hate speech in it? You seem to be assuming your conclusions.
      - Mithaldu 11y ago
        I'm saying that the scenario you proposed does not fall under the laws (particularly of my own country) that govern restrictions regarding holocaust denial. Feel free to peruse them to see if you agree with me on that: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1241 http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg... http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1703 http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg... http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1712 http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg...