> Always be wary of particularly outrageous claims. There is almost no detail of the Holocaust that couldn't be described as an "outrageous claim", and yet the

> Always be wary of particularly outrageous claims. There is almost no detail of the Holocaust that couldn't be described as an "outrageous claim", and yet these things actually happened. What is far more pernicious is for people to engage in ideologically motivated skepticism and denial towards these atrocities, which I think Cambodia provides a much better example of: https://quillette.com/2018/07/15/devastation-and-denial-cambodia-and-the-academic-left/ https://quillette.com/2018/07/15/devastation-and-denial-camb... > Refugee testimonies were not be dismissed, Chomsky argued, but nor were they to be trusted. “Refugees,” he wrote, “are frightened and defenceless, at the mercy of alien forces. They naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocutors wish to hear.”4 > Many other Western intellectuals summarily dismissed Barron and Paul’s conclusion of a “monstrous dark age that has engulfed the people of Cambodia.” The aforementioned Gareth Porter called refugee testimony the “least reliable kind of documentation,” and derided the refugees themselves as merely the wealthy elite of Cambodian society who had lost out in the collectivisation process. When Porter testified before U.S Congress he stated, “I cannot accept the premise … that one million people have been murdered systematically or that the Government of Cambodia is systematically slaughtering its people.”5 Believe me, when I say that you sound like a Cambodian genocide denier, it's because you sound a lot like a Cambodian genocide denier.