5 ms·
>It's irrelevant if 6 million Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis during WW2 instead of 7 million or 5 million. The problem is how this sort of nitpicking revolv
by _dain_ 4y ago
>It's irrelevant if 6 million Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis during WW2 instead of 7 million or 5 million. The problem is how this sort of nitpicking revolving high-level gross estimates is leveraged to deny it ever exist and fuel further hatred targeting Jewish people.
The accurate number doesn't matter, but if you say the accurate number, that's bad, because the people who think the number is zero will somehow win. So don't say the accurate number.
Okay.
- encryptluks2 4y ago[flagged]
- matwood 4y agoWe see this all the time when arguing with a side that doesn't care about the truth. Completely arbitrary, but I might say 10, and later find out 9. The other sides takes minor corrections/adjustments as fuel to say no, it must be 0 because the side saying 10 lied to you. If everyone was really looking for the truth, this wouldn't be an issue because this is how science works. But, often one side is only pushing an agenda where the truth is irrelevant.
- karaterobot 4y agoWhat you said above could be applied to both sides of this debate, even in this thread. I hope that was your point, and not just an irony.
- simplotek 4y ago> What you said above could be applied to both sides of this debate, even in this thread. I Not really. One side says "there is no way to accurately tell exactly how many died in the Holocaust, but it's estimated the number can go as high as 6 million". The other side says "the 6 million number is a lie they made up to push the idea the Holocaust happened". Let's not pretend that attacking estimates by misrepresenting them like this is an argument made in good faith.
- _dain_ 4y agoI'm one of those old fashioned people who thinks that encyclopedias should have facts in them.