4 ms·

>This is a typical slight of hand in these discussions. We are talking about deeply intolerant, bad faith actors, and you substitute this with "censoring opinio

by konjin 6y ago

>This is a typical slight of hand in these discussions. We are talking about deeply intolerant, bad faith actors, and you substitute this with "censoring opinions outside the mainstream". NO U. That aught to be enough for the argument to be closed, but since we like to pretend we're better than that: how can you tell that someone holds bad faith views? I do not have a machine to peer into the soul of man, neither do you. People can believe horrible things and think themselves good people, just wait 30 years and you will be one of them. That your views happen to be ascendant doesn't mean we should ban everyone who isn't.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ngcazz 6y ago
When Holocaust denialism spreads it erodes solidarity with its victims, and people who do it are wittingly or not contributing to build the conditions for its repetition. So yes, we should be having the argument.
throwaway2048 6y ago
There is a a very very close to zero percent chance that somebody that is denying one of the most heavily documented genocides in history is acting in good faith.
- rightbyte 6y ago
  Holocaust denier is often used as a straw man of someone that estimate the exact figure to something lower than consensus. In Austria and France etc. the state throw people in jail for that. Like a Tiananmen Square policy in reverse.
- konjin 6y ago
  The funny thing is that everyone in the West denies the Holocaust happened to the Slavs (5 million Slavs to 6 million Jews). Even though Hitler said time and time again that Slavs were to be exterminated from all areas west of the Urals. So when are we banning everyone who says only 6 million people died in the holocaust?
- thu2111 6y ago
  Yeah, but there's also a very very close to zero percent chance that people labelled as "deniers" are actually saying the Holocaust never happened. The sibling comment seems to reinforce this intuition and in fact the article groups "deniers" with people who "distort" the Holocaust. That would appear to encompass any historian who attempted to disagree with any aspect of the historical record at all, in any way. How many people have you ever met, or even heard of directly, that claim the Holocaust never happened? I can honestly say I couldn't name a single one, not even in places like the USA where they'd be able to make such speech under the First Amendment (not on Facebook). I've only ever heard about such people indirectly, via what censors claim about them. Now how many people do you see who throw around the term "Nazi" like it's a schoolyard insult? That happens every day. I see people being compared to Nazis all the time, right here on HN which claims to have strong moderation. The likelihood of this sort of censorship being applied to people who literally deny the Holocaust is tiny. Facebook have spent 2020 routinely censoring scientists who don't agree with the WHO, even though the WHO changes its mind every five minutes. Many of the people in high places in these companies seem to believe any disagreement with authority is worthy of censorship. They are not free speech absolutists who make an exception for truly dire cases.
throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
Let's get specific. Should this be allowed, yes or no: <<< Jews are described as "the ugliest, most evil-minded people" who resemble "maggots when they overpopulate a decaying cheese." >>> from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotypes_of_Jews_in_literature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotypes_of_Jews_in_literat... Edit: point of this is to get to the reality of what's said. If you think this is too unpleasant, 5 downvotes and I'll delete it.
- hef19898 6y ago
  Saying what stereotypes about jews are is different from pushing these stereotypes as truth.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    Both are free speech, right? Also, I asked a very clear question and requested a clear yes/no. What is your answer?
    - hef19898 6y ago
      Stating what others historically thought about, in your example jews, has to be ok. How would educate people about anti-semitism if it wasn't? Promoting these views as truths should be treated as the hate speech it is. Which should not be covered by free speech, IMHO.
      - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
        "stating..." - agreed. "promoting..." - agreed. Upthread the guy said "Tolerance means putting up with things with which you disagree". He's arguing for no restrictions AFAICT. Hence my post, to which no answer was forthcoming from him.
        hef19898 6y ago
        Free speech is tricky, and every nation has to find its own balance, its own limits to what is acceptable and what isn't. Being German, I am pretty sensitive with regards to the Holocaust, anti-semitism, Nazi propaganda and, as a logical extension, anti-muslim and anti-lgbtq propaganda. Personally, I draw the line where other people's freedoms are limited and other people are actively discriminated against. Basically at hate speech.

by konjin 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ngcazz 6y ago

When Holocaust denialism spreads it erodes solidarity with its victims, and people who do it are wittingly or not contributing to build the conditions for its repetition. So yes, we should be having the argument.

throwaway2048 6y ago

There is a a very very close to zero percent chance that somebody that is denying one of the most heavily documented genocides in history is acting in good faith.

rightbyte 6y ago
Holocaust denier is often used as a straw man of someone that estimate the exact figure to something lower than consensus. In Austria and France etc. the state throw people in jail for that. Like a Tiananmen Square policy in reverse.
konjin 6y ago
The funny thing is that everyone in the West denies the Holocaust happened to the Slavs (5 million Slavs to 6 million Jews). Even though Hitler said time and time again that Slavs were to be exterminated from all areas west of the Urals. So when are we banning everyone who says only 6 million people died in the holocaust?
thu2111 6y ago
Yeah, but there's also a very very close to zero percent chance that people labelled as "deniers" are actually saying the Holocaust never happened. The sibling comment seems to reinforce this intuition and in fact the article groups "deniers" with people who "distort" the Holocaust. That would appear to encompass any historian who attempted to disagree with any aspect of the historical record at all, in any way. How many people have you ever met, or even heard of directly, that claim the Holocaust never happened? I can honestly say I couldn't name a single one, not even in places like the USA where they'd be able to make such speech under the First Amendment (not on Facebook). I've only ever heard about such people indirectly, via what censors claim about them. Now how many people do you see who throw around the term "Nazi" like it's a schoolyard insult? That happens every day. I see people being compared to Nazis all the time, right here on HN which claims to have strong moderation. The likelihood of this sort of censorship being applied to people who literally deny the Holocaust is tiny. Facebook have spent 2020 routinely censoring scientists who don't agree with the WHO, even though the WHO changes its mind every five minutes. Many of the people in high places in these companies seem to believe any disagreement with authority is worthy of censorship. They are not free speech absolutists who make an exception for truly dire cases.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago

Let's get specific. Should this be allowed, yes or no: <<< Jews are described as "the ugliest, most evil-minded people" who resemble "maggots when they overpopulate a decaying cheese." >>> from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotypes_of_Jews_in_literature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotypes_of_Jews_in_literat... Edit: point of this is to get to the reality of what's said. If you think this is too unpleasant, 5 downvotes and I'll delete it.

hef19898 6y ago
Saying what stereotypes about jews are is different from pushing these stereotypes as truth.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  Both are free speech, right? Also, I asked a very clear question and requested a clear yes/no. What is your answer?
  - hef19898 6y ago
    Stating what others historically thought about, in your example jews, has to be ok. How would educate people about anti-semitism if it wasn't? Promoting these views as truths should be treated as the hate speech it is. Which should not be covered by free speech, IMHO.
    - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
      "stating..." - agreed. "promoting..." - agreed. Upthread the guy said "Tolerance means putting up with things with which you disagree". He's arguing for no restrictions AFAICT. Hence my post, to which no answer was forthcoming from him.
      - hef19898 6y ago
        Free speech is tricky, and every nation has to find its own balance, its own limits to what is acceptable and what isn't. Being German, I am pretty sensitive with regards to the Holocaust, anti-semitism, Nazi propaganda and, as a logical extension, anti-muslim and anti-lgbtq propaganda. Personally, I draw the line where other people's freedoms are limited and other people are actively discriminated against. Basically at hate speech.