3 ms·

Not sure what you dug up, but I’m not aware of anyone with an interest other than proving “see, we weren’t the bad guys”. Since the Holocaust is a historical fa

Not sure what you dug up, but I’m not aware of anyone with an interest other than proving “see, we weren’t the bad guys”. Since the Holocaust is a historical fact, historians without revisionist goals have no reason to debate its existence. Research into the extent and details of the Holocaust are perfectly acceptable. Side not, the absolute vast majority of German society is on board with this limit of freedom of speech. It’s part of the constitution even.

saas_sam 6y ago
There are several examples under "Commentary" section on the Wikipedia article. This isn't hard, I don't see how you can dig your heels in on this. You really CANNOT fathom how someone would be against strict speech laws for good reasons? Outside your imagination entirely? Come on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial
- ephimetheus 6y ago
  I should have added “in Germany”. Of course it’s not outside my imagination, but I think the idea that freedoms without limits should exist is super misguided and one of the central flaws of American democracy. It’s like allowing someone to claim something that is an absolute fact like the existence of the sun was a lie. But that’s ok because it doesn’t invalidate the unspeakable suffering of millions at the hands of industrialized slaughterers. That’s also why the slippery slope doesn’t apply. The line is clear as can be.
raxxorrax 6y ago
You fail to make the distinction in holding the opinion and allowing people to have the opinion. I would a tiny minority of people complaining about speech restrictions hold the opinion or even want to make it socially acceptable. Most just argue that people themselves should be the ones to cast the judgement, not Facebook. These are very basic comprehension issues and your insinuation on those that disagree are fairly similar to reasoning you see in plain fascism.
- ephimetheus 6y ago
  I’m very much able to make the distinction, but there are opinions so vile they can’t be tolerated. That’s just a fact. The line is also pretty clear, at least as far as the German law is concerned, so the danger (see slippery slope argument) is well worth the risk. The slippery slope argument is more applicable the other way round: if you tolerate this, it normalizes or rationalizes the Holocaust, and that’s the first step towards another genocide.

saas_sam 6y ago

There are several examples under "Commentary" section on the Wikipedia article. This isn't hard, I don't see how you can dig your heels in on this. You really CANNOT fathom how someone would be against strict speech laws for good reasons? Outside your imagination entirely? Come on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial

ephimetheus 6y ago
I should have added “in Germany”. Of course it’s not outside my imagination, but I think the idea that freedoms without limits should exist is super misguided and one of the central flaws of American democracy. It’s like allowing someone to claim something that is an absolute fact like the existence of the sun was a lie. But that’s ok because it doesn’t invalidate the unspeakable suffering of millions at the hands of industrialized slaughterers. That’s also why the slippery slope doesn’t apply. The line is clear as can be.

raxxorrax 6y ago

You fail to make the distinction in holding the opinion and allowing people to have the opinion. I would a tiny minority of people complaining about speech restrictions hold the opinion or even want to make it socially acceptable. Most just argue that people themselves should be the ones to cast the judgement, not Facebook. These are very basic comprehension issues and your insinuation on those that disagree are fairly similar to reasoning you see in plain fascism.

ephimetheus 6y ago
I’m very much able to make the distinction, but there are opinions so vile they can’t be tolerated. That’s just a fact. The line is also pretty clear, at least as far as the German law is concerned, so the danger (see slippery slope argument) is well worth the risk. The slippery slope argument is more applicable the other way round: if you tolerate this, it normalizes or rationalizes the Holocaust, and that’s the first step towards another genocide.