Don’t encourage it
Oh, lordy, lordy, lordy, children – I’ve spent too much of today arguing with a ‘Holocaust denier,’ or perhaps just a brainless troll pretending to be a Holocaust denier. I knew I shouldn’t, I knew it was as futile an enterprise as cooking rice one grain at a time or shoveling snow with a teaspoon, but I couldn’t stop myself. The troll kept answering and answering and answering, and I just couldn’t leave it alone. I’m such a fool!
But, I don’t know, perhaps it was inevitable. It kept saying ‘there’s no evidence’ so how could I not go fetch some evidence to show it that there is? It would be expecting too much. Or maybe it wouldn’t, but anyway, that’s what I did. But of course the stupid troll couldn’t be bothered to look at the evidence, it was having much too much fun doing nothing at all apart from repeating over and over that there was no evidence. It only does it to annoy, because it knows it teases – I know that, I know that perfectly well, it’s like those people in the playground, you don’t argue with them, you just walk away. But – well, I’m not that sane, that’s all; I never have been.
The thing is that Julian wanted readers’ thoughts on whether he should or shouldn’t debate David Irving.
The issue for me is not about whether Irving should be allowed to air his views: I think he should. The serious issue for me is whether it is right to give people with such views a prominent public platform, thereby legitimising them in some way. In theory, it sounds nobler to always fight the truth out in public, but we surely can’t ignore the fact that the attention someone gets has as much, if not more, of an impact than what we actually say when we debate them.
Just so, and in particular in the case of David Irving, because he is a falsifier as well as a denier, so not only is that an excellent reason not to give him the oxygen of publicity, it’s also an excellent reason not to debate him since it’s impossible to trust him to tell the truth. Most people yesterday said Don’t do it – and then today the deniers turned up. There’s a guy called Fredrick Toben, who has a Wikipedia entry. And there’s a troll, who has nothing in particular except the ability to say ‘There is not a shred of evidence’ over and over despite having evidence handed to him on an engraved silver charger with tortoiseshell inlay. He got up my nose, that troll did. So I spent too much time typing words for him to read and then ignore. I’m a fool, a fool!
But maybe not. After all I’m interested in this kind of thing, these cherished and protected delusions (and of course that’s what they think or pretend to think of us – the ‘Holocaust industry’ as they call it), so it’s not such a waste to explore it in depth now and then. Only the stupidity is so exasperating, you know.
Never mind, I spent time exploring Holocaust Denial on Trial, which is certainly well worth doing. An education in history all by itself, for one thing.
Actually I guess the reason it annoys me is not the time but the sense of, how shall I say, contamination. They’re not a crowd I much want to sit around chatting with, frankly.
Dont beat up on youself O.B what else could you have done the guy was denying the worst event in human history you had to try.
The blog topic has been deleted which I think is probably for the best: no more air time for those imbeciles, which, ironically, was the exact point everyone was making in the first place about not debating with Irving.
As soon as it became glaringly apparent that “the troll” was a denier, I realised it was pointless to keep arguing but I kept going anyway because he was so infuriating. I think underneath it all I didn’t want him to think he had won, which is pretty immature on my part. I would have been better off banging my head against a brick wall.
Do you find it a bit odd that a couple of Holocaust deniers found their way onto the TPM blog? Especially seeing one of them is renowned as such? It seems unlikely to me that Holocaust deniers would frequent sites like TPM. Do you think that maybe they constantly google certain keywords in order to take advantage of any opportunity to air their deranged ideas?
Kitten killer.
Rose although you would not convince the troll it is still worth taking on these types because even if you dont convince them you can help stop the poison spreading to others, remember scum like Irving can be very convincing because they distort historical facts to make their point.
Hmm. You could be right, Richard. I’m not sure my original position was correct. Ophelia did provide a lot of useful evidence and the trolls did kind of publicly dig their own graves. Hmm. What they were claiming was so outrageous it was impossible not to be outraged . . . but I think by responding all I did was fan the flames . . . but possibly it would be beneficial for society if people did publicly stand up to their twisted lies. I’m in two minds.
PS. Ophelia I hope I’m not stalking you. I’m just really interested in all this and glad to be able to participate in these discussions. I hope I’m not being too in your face. I’m new to blogging and am not sure of the etiquette.
Rose it is a dificult one because as O.B was saying you feel contaminated just by speaking to scum like them ,but the way I see it is if you let them speak they basicly hang themselves because a toddler with an internet conection could disprove them given a couple of minuites, but if you delete them or refuse to engage they use this as evidence of their absurd conspiracy theories, you know the sort of stuff mass brain washing by jewish intellectuals crap,Irving even calls his revolting web site something like the world of real truth!
Also remember that a lot of young people today have very little knolledge of this subject, I remember sometime ago U.S. teenagers were surveyed about the holocaust and other events relating to W.W.2 and I think it was about half of them new nothing about it,that maybe is the market Irving is aiming at.
I think it’s a shame they’ve removed the piece. It showed with perfect clarity exactly why it’s such a waste of time to debate with people like that. The reflex responses by that troll Peter W S (I won’t write out the name in full, as I imagine he’s the kind of guy who’s in the habit of googling his name regularly) to Ophelia’s increasingly detailed citing of evidence were almost perversely comic. And it’s not often you get a philosophical question – Julian’s “should I debate?” – answered with such a clear practical demonstration.
The discussion seems to have been pulled. And I for one am unsure as to whether that’s a good thing or not.
Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but the little bit of Irving’s work I have read does not deny the Holocaust in the sense of denying that there were extermination camps and that Jews, Gypsies and others were methodically killed. What Irving denies is that Hitler knew about it. He has issued a challenge for anyone to come up with a single bit of evidence to that effect. So far, no-one has. A single memo from a camp commandant initialled by Hitler would do.
It is a setup. It is like proving you were bashed in a police station, or raped in a deserted park. Inevitably there are no witnesses: at least none ready to talk.
There is only the testimony of survivors. And they are inevitably biased, aren’t they?
The proof, if any were necessary, that Hitler knew all about it is in Mein Kampf, where he states his intentions to rid Europe of Jews, and in the nature of Nazi Germany itself. Any Nazi subordinate who took a decision on a matter like that, where there was any risk at all that Der Fuhrer would not approve, would be putting his head on the block. ‘Cover yourself’ is the watchword of the bureaucrat.
Is Irving saying that Nazi bureaucrats did not observe this rule?
I think that it was right to erase the whole discussion. The two trolls were just trying to provoke: apparently, they never take time off to sleep, eat, interact with friends or family (they may have neither) or take a walk. I was on the point of saying that my father once described how he and his pals dealt with Nazis back in the 1930’s: with baseball bats. Our contemporary Nazis would have enjoyed seeing my anger, and so I said nothing. Ophelia, I don’t think that it was a mistake to try to argue with them at first, because without the experience of seeing how perverse they are, you had no way of knowing that the debate was pointless. Probably, Holocaust denial attracts a more perverse and sadistic mentality than most weird theories. I imagine that believers in reincarnation or some other New Age nonsense or even that Elvis is still alive are nicer people.
I think that the discussion was intriguing for a while and I think OB and others did an impressive job of making the case…Bravo to all.
But it seemed to get more and more abusive, so by Sat. night all of us were getting teased and provoked, and more of them were showing up, and they were basically playing with us.
Worst moment in whole affair–when amos said his own relatives died in the Holocaust and they treated that as nonsense. Over the line, not acceptable.
And so I was delighted when a computer glitch destroyed the whole thing. Who knows, maybe the problem will get fixed, but if it doesn’t I’ll be perfectly happy.
I do not think for one minute that the comments on Julian Baggini’s thread vis-à-vis his decision/or not to debate David Irving should have been deleted. How in Betsy’s name are people (who are new to this kind of thing) ever expected to learn, irrespective of whether the comments are good, bad or indifferent – if not from experiences such as the comments on talkingphilosophy.com. I understand there is free speech, and there is ‘free speech’. Nonetheless, readers should for themselves decide if they want to/or not want to read the comments. They can always with the simple touch of their fingers/mice switch off or visit B&W, if they are offended by the contents of the thread.
I went into the Australian site of one Fredrick Töben – and in the section containing German! Wine! Women! Das Lied der Deutschen – Deutschland über alles German national Deutschland, Deutschland über alles, Über alles in der Welt blared out from the stereo headphones on the desk beside me when I pressed on the play part – (I have a monthly ticket at the Internet, which does not include sound so you can just imagine I was doubly surprised)
I thoroughly enjoyed OB’s/Rose’s input. At the beginning of it, I was in stitches laughing. OB was spot on/witty/as quick as lightning with her challenging responses to David Irving’s alleged like-minded Holocaust Denier friends.
Then it became very serious. It was sad to hear about Amos’s family who suffered dreadfully at the hands of Nazi’s. it was also very educational to learn from Jean Kazez about the Holocaust memorial place that she visited & the various books on the Holocaust that she recommended to all. It was also a real eye-opener to see on line alleged Holocaust deniers in action.
People do not/must not be shielded from the truth. The truth hurts and the truth stinks. But it is better to air ones dirty linen out in the open than to shove it under the carpet.
Rose, good heavens, stalking, of course not! Interchange is a good thing. And I’m not exactly hiding my light under a bushel here – just for one thing I link to here via my name (automatically) every time I comment at TP. That amounts to an open invitation. I’m delighted to see you. (The deniers, not so much, but fortunately they haven’t followed.)
The oddity of the deniers turning up – absolutely. I figured they must google David Irving every few hours in order to keep up.
I’ve read most of that thread, and it was painful and infuriating. But I wonder what would have happened if anyone conceded to Peter, and said that he has managed to convince you. After all, it was his very convincing knowledge on the subject vs. OB’s weird evidence that all started with “www” – what kind of language is that? Alien? Jewish? Was Peter actually ever told that he was supposed to drag his mouse over those www’s and click? Because I don’t think he knows that’s how it works.
No see that’s a wild goose chase. Being told that there actually is a large amount of evidence here at this link which you can get to with one click is being sent on a wild goose chase. You’re supposed to be able to stay on one site and demand that people give you direct ‘forensic’ evidence (over the Internet!) and until then you’re entitled to keep on saying there is not a shred of evidence. That’s how it works, you see – that’s professional up to date historiography for you.
The deniers have stashed the thread here.
Yeah, wild goose chase, that’s true, he likes that phrase.
BTW, I really don’t it was a good idea to close down the thread. Now they’re definitely going to think they won, plus, they’re gonna argue that we all just pretend that we support freedom of speech, when it’s really just our own speech that we want protected.
If anyone wants to continue the conversation, there are plenty of ways to do it, including following Ophelia’s link. Tea, M-T…go ahead and follow up. I didn’t see you participate yesterday. Why not, if you think these people are worth talking to? Why just watch from the sidelines?
TP is not under any obligation to host a forum on whether or not the Holocaust occurred. That wasn’t the intent of Julian’s post, but that’s what the thread had become. Why would I care if these people think they’ve won? They don’t think the Holocaust took place. They’re morally and rationally beyond repair.
I followed that thread with increasing exasperation that ended in being utterly gobsmacked. I’m intensely curious to know what motivates these deniers/revisionists, in a psychological sense. They are utterly *consumed* by a *need* to not believe the Holocaust happened. I mean, how do you explain someone like this Peter Sault who said (I’m paraphrasing) that since Ophelia won’t cut and paste the contents of the links to evidence she provided, that “any reasonable person must assume she’s lying.” Um. . he’s refusing to look at the link, and positing that that refusal is a reasonable position, and is sufficient to call Ophelia a liar. This is *crazy*.
Does anyone have any insight into this utterly bizarre psychological disposition? Whence comes this all-consuming obsession with denying? What twisted need does it satisfy in these people? I’m not just spouting off (though I need to vent), I’m genuinely boggled by this and I hope someone here can illuminate it.
Jean,
I suppose you’re right… It’s driving me crazy that people like that think they won, but I’m gonna have to grow out of it soon if I want to keep my sanity.
The truth is, I don’t think they’re worth talking to… but I can’t help myself. The reason why I didn’t say anything was that I thought OB was doing a pretty good job. Still, it was very hard to keep my self from yelling “IDIOTS!!!”.
They’re clearly going to think they won no matter what anyone does.
I know exactly what you mean, Tea! I had the same problem – obviously. With each new stupidity I just couldn’t stand not to answer.
Josh – I think one factor is that there’s no cost. Why wouldn’t Peter Thing Thing go on doing that if he finds it entertaining? He’s arranged things so that all he has to do is keep repeating a formula, so if it amuses him, there’s nothing to make him not want to. (Of course another factor is that he’s obviously very dim, which means that he doesn’t realize he’s making a fool of himself. But he probably wouldn’t mind if he did realize.)
“With each new stupidity I just couldn’t stand not to answer.”
I had this cousin that would reduce me to tears and no doubt himself to silent glee. He would make outrageously false statements – eg that there are stars on the Union Flag for instance. I would ask the grown ups. He would say that they were just saying that. I would show him a picture in an encyclopaedia. He would say the encyclopaedia was lying. At the end I would be on the ground beating it with my fists and adults had to intervene. This is more than passive-aggressive isn’t it? Passive-obdurate-aggressive?
I clicked on Ophelia’s link above to Trolls Inc. It seems they had started emailing each other to participate in the blog, which means it probably would have become inundated with hateful didactic posts. They would have gathered steam as everyone else gave up. They probably would have kept an eye on the blog, and therefore noticed when new topics went up and started commenting on those too. I do think it’s probably best it got shut down.
I know what Ophelia means by “contamination”. Encountering and engaging with these trolls felt like an eel slithering past my leg in a river: shudder. Cold, slippery and vaguely threatening. Horrid.
Hmm. I think it’s best it got shut down in the sense of closing comments, but I’m sorry the whole thing is gone. It was an interesting discussion at first, so I think it’s too bad it all had to go. But, it’s their blog; they can delete whatever they want to.
I certainly am sorry I spent so much time on it yesterday though. If I’d known it was all going to disappear, I would have done something useful instead.
Just btw, Oliver Kamm has often engaged Irving and such oddballs with effective argument – and he has also just reinstated the comment facility at his blog. http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/
As Norm says, one can argue with them in speech and writing without having to meet face to face. Especially, I would add, in front of an audience. Since they have no scruples about the truth at all, anyone debating them who does have such scruples is at a radical disadvantage in live debate. It’s the same with IDers – they say whatever gets the crowd, the scientists talk science; the IDers win. It sucks.
http://www.schindlerjews.com/photos/ No comment needed!
Or http://www.oskarschindler.com/Albums4/album.htm
I have now read the thread “Should i debate a holocaust denier?” pulled from TPM, which was re-posted on Fredrick Toben’s site. My judgement as an impartial reader is that there were no offensive or even qustionable comments by either Peter Wakfield Sault or Frederick Toben.
[Edited]
I guess the clincher for me was when it became clear that these people had also bought into the ‘9/11 was a Jewish conspiracy’ stuff. They get their rocks off by denying the obvious and upsetting as many people as possible. Their technique is accurately described by K B Player and Nigel Blake does himself no favours by pretending that the discussion was a level playing field and that rational debaters were being wrongly abused. Also to claim that there was no visible anti-Semitism shows an alarming inability to read between the lines.
I probably shouldn’t engage with this again, but I can’t help myself.
Out of some kind of morbid fascination I read some of the Adelaide Institute website today. Blatantly, even proudly, anti-semitic. And Peter W S was neither rational nor respectful, he was patronising, infuriatingly rude and showed very limited capacity and zero willingness to comprehend basic facts, all with a kind of passive-aggressive tone.
I suspect the only reason he conceded the point about Irving is because a lot of the deniers already think Irving does not go far enough: ie, that there were NO gas chambers at all. So really he conceded nothing: he merely accepted something that already fit his ridiculous conception of the Holocaust as a hoax.
And the difference between denying God and denying the Holocaust is that God obviously doesn’t exist whereas the Holocaust obviously did take place.
I question your impartiality, Nigel Blake . . .
Regarding Nigel Blake’s characterisation of Norm Finkelstein as a “holocaust revisionist”:
The dedication on Mr Finkelstein’s first book was:
“To my beloved parents,
Maryla Husyt Finkelstein,
survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto,
Maidanek concentration camp
and
Zacharias Finkelstein,
survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto,
Auschwitz concentration camp.
May I never forget or forgive what was done to them.”
see http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/content.php?pg=5.
Perhaps Mr Blake does not realize that “Holocaust revisionist” has a peculiar meaning – a person who denies the Holocaust happened.
“And the difference between denying God and denying the Holocaust is that God obviously doesn’t exist whereas the Holocaust obviously did take place.”
Oops, sorry, that’s a bit irrelevant and not really formed. I meant to delete that bit before posting my comment.
I doubt that there can be an innocent historical debate over whether the Holocaust occurred, as there could be over whether or when the Trojan War took place. The Holocaust deniers have a hidden or not so hidden agenda, and the two who appeared in the TPM blog were there to provoke us, to hurt us, for some perverse reason. Norman Finkelstein is not a Holocaust denier or revisionist: he simply points out, among other things, how the fact of the Holocaust has been used by the state of Israel as a pretext for its geopolitical aims. Hannah Arendt’s book, Eichmann in Jerusalem,
is also a thoughtful reflection on how Israel used and uses the very real fact of the Holocaust. By the way, the statistic of 6 million victims does not take into account the survivors, those with lifetime traumas, such my friend, A, who, as a very small Jewish child in France, spent the years of the Nazi occupation in a closet with orders to stay silent, hidden by her older brother, after their parents had been shipped to a death camp, where they died. A is a brillant woman, with a doctorate in linguistics, but the scars show. Given that the two Holocaust deniers were just there to cause damage, as is evident from the comments that they sent after the thread was closed (for example: you can run, but you can’t hide), I think that the decision to close the thread was prudent.
Of course Finkelstein is not a denier. Only a fool or an anti-Semite would be. But he differs with the othdox view of the holocaust and i suggest you read his web site.
normanfinkelstein.com
Also here is another Jewish author (Michael Hoffman, “The Israeli Holocaust Against the Palestinians”) who is avowedly revisionist in the legitimate sense. revisionisthistory.org
G
Oops – my view, for what it is worth, is that this is not a debate that can be held in good faith – it has similar purpose to providing ‘evidence’ for creationists – that is not what they are interested in (“the onus is actually on you to produce and argue the proofs in a coherent and accessible manner” my frickin arse), they have a preformed world view that is independent of any material facts – ‘evidence’ is only there to bolster their view, not challenge it:
Since this isn’t something to be fruitfully continued here, I suggest blocking, they’ve nothing to contribute:
“You also use the term “for Christ’s sakes” at one point, which could be construed abusive and offensive to people who believe in Christ”
Oh dear, no! OB must feel so very bad for what she has done. What a fucking loon. Oh yeah, and since you asked nicely, you’re a troll.
Thank you PM. You responded in the true spirit of the debate.
NB
Nigel: “Can someone explain why we shouldn’t consider Ophelia offensive and repugnant? And Kazez as simply dishonest?”
Because there’s no forensic evidence for it.
For the record, Norman Finkelstein is not a Holocaust revisionist in any meaning of the term “revisionist”. He is not a historical expert on the Holocaust so he is not a revisionist in the ordinary sense of the word. Nor does he deny it happened, so he is not one of those strange people who think that denying its reality is “revisionism”.
How pointing out the latter use of the term “revisionist” is dishonest is beyond me. The term is one they use to describe themselves.
But then looking at the likes of Irving one soon learns to spot the disingenuousness of it all. For the general audience they claim to accept the reality of the Shoah but quibble about the details. After all, they say, we are all engaged in an open-minded search for truth, are we not? For those of similar political opinions they claim the quibbles are in fact proofs it did not happen.
“Thank you PM. You responded in the true spirit of the debate.”
No, I responded in the true spirit of _this_ debate.
Nigel: I am familiar with Finkelstein’s website and with his research. He in no way questions the fact of the Holocaust, just the way that the state of Israel uses it to justify its geopolitical expansionism.
I believe that I said that above. Please read my posts with more care. Thank you.
The religious in Ireland are somewhat similar to the holocaust deniers in that they too quite emphatically so have denied that most of the children in their care in the past were either sexually, psychologically and emotionally abused. The religious, despite the evidence put before them, refuse to accept the truth. Approximately 14, 500 people who grew up in Irish industrial schools in the past will be appearing (or already have appeared) before a Residential Institutions’ Redress Board (with the expectation of receiving by it (on behalf of the Irish State) some form of compensation for the damage done to them by the religious in the past.) Yet, the religious who claim to love Jesus Christ their Saviour still cannot see the woods for the trees. They are totally convinced that slave labour such as rosary bead making that occurred every single day of children’s lives (aside from a few weeks during summer holidays) was industrial school training and was therefore not a cruel activity. The victims/survivors on a large scale who grew up in Ireland’s industrial schools liken their lives to that of Jewish children who were by the Nazis incarcerated in Europe’s concentration camps. All shared lots of things in common. Zum beispeil! Detention Numbers!
155, 39 Anseo!
‘Incidentally, does anyone want to call me a holocaust denier, or an anti-Semite? Or a troll perhaps?’
On reflection, yes.
MTOL – and just like the Jews they’re just making it up to get compensation.
Conspiracy narratives are really quite flexible.
Oooooooookay, time for some judicious deleting.
In the meantime (deletion is a slow process, unfortunately) – Nigel Blake – sorry but you’re wrong about how ‘respectful’ the deniers were. PWS simply refused to look at any of the evidence I pointed out, and instead kept repeating that there is not a shred of evidence that the Holocaust took place. There’s nothing ‘respectful’ about that. PWS also made it blindingly obvious that he hasn’t the most rudimentary knowledge of history and what historical evidence is – he admitted that he doesn’t even understand the term ‘primary source’! So on what basis could he conceivably know or even have a rational opinion about the evidence for the Holocaust?
It’s not ‘respectful’ to pretend to have more knowledge than one has or to assert things that one can’t possibly know.
Regarding Irving’s denial of the connection between Hitler and the Holocaust, I suggest SpiegelOnline’s series “The Rise of Hitler”. Because Irving says he can’t find the evidence doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, as Der Spiegel shows.
Just what I kept trying to tell PWS. It’s so easy just to say ‘There is no evidence’ – anyone can say that about anything. It’s a mere assertion, and an absurd one at that. (Has PWS examined the evidence? Any of it? He makes it obvious that he hasn’t.)
Oh no, it looks like I was way too nice to Mr. Nigel Blake when I answered him at TP this morning. I hadn’t kept reading this thread. He said over there:
“how do we lay doubts to rest on an issue in which many of us are not emotional”
I said:
“If you’re asking all your questions sincerely (sounds like it), I do have to wonder how you come to have your doubts Are you not sure about the Civil War too? What’s making you have doubts about the Holocaust? If you do honestly have them, I think the solution is to go read some books, visit a museum, watch videos and movies, listen to Holocaust survivors talk about what they suffered and witnessed, go to a museum. There is a huge mountain of evidence. Compared to the mountain, the Holocaust deniers are just a couple of fire ants. (We have them in Texas…they’re tiny ants that bite very hard and cause days of itching.) The problem with listening to a debate with a couple of them is that you can easily lose sight of proportion. The fire ants start to seem as big as the mountain. So I think the forum we had here the other day is just about the worst possible way you could choose to settle your doubts.”
Darn! I’m starting to think he did not go to the library today and check out some books about the Holocaust!!
Yeah and that’s after I deleted most of his longest and nastiest comment. He had me fooled at first too. Just as PWS did at first.
A colleague gave me an “Insult A Day” calendar for 2008. Today’s insult is the following, with the original target removed:
“Arguing with [target] seems to be a lot like trying to teach Plato’s ‘Republic’ to pigs: it wastes your time and it annoys the pig”.
(Attributed to “Bradford DeLong, professor of economics at University of California, Berkeley”).
The problem is that holocaust denial, like the 9/11 “truth” movement, is a conspiracy theory – it’s predicated on secrets, occult knowledge, and everything being part of a plan. I’m sure I’m not the only person here who has talked to people with delusional mental illnesses and been struck by the way that absolutely everything you say is fitted neatly into the delusion, and it’s the same with conspiracy theories – if there’s no evidence, that in itself is evidence for the power of the cover-up. Literally everything can have some interpretation put on it which makes it bolster the central belief.
I’ve been involved in online debates in various different forums for nearly twenty years now, and I pretty soon realised that there are certain classes of believers who it is not worth debating with, ever. Racists, holocaust denialists, creationists, “libertarians” and Randroids, and more recently climate change deniers and 9/11 troofers. You’re never going to get anywhere by trying to engage in reasoned argument with them, because their beliefs are not grounded on reason.
“I’ve been involved in online debates in various different forums for nearly twenty years now, and I pretty soon realised that there are certain classes of believers who it is not worth debating with, ever.”
Andrew, you have arrived at your conclusions about not debating with holocaust deniers etc, because of much learned past experiences.Your involvement with various forums over the years taught you a great lot. You are now sentient of the grim reality that one is not ever going to get anywhere with these unreasoned folk. However, in order for you to have come to these conclusions not to debate with holocaust deniers, etc, you had first & foremost to go through actual experiences. Therefore, how do you propose that others who have not had the benefit of your hindsight & wisdom come to the same conclusions? How is one supposed to reap the same knowledge?
I for one have never seen holocaust deniers in action until the other day @ TP. It was something to reckon with – not only, might I add, from the view- point of the deniers, but also from that of the opposite side. Not to mention indeed, the handling of it (the action) in the aftermath!
It was one mighty lesson.
I was trying to find a quotation from Samuel Johnson of how if someone wanted to believe something and you produced the plainest evidence that it wasn’t true, they would still believe it.
Can’t find the quotation but it reminds me of the Ossian controversy where people for nationalistic and Romantic reasons wanted to believe in the existence of the works of Ossian and got disgruntled and defensive if they were challenged.
These people are desperate not to believe in the Holocaust. Yet they presumably have no problems in believing in the bombing of Dresden or the cracking of the Enigma code.
Oh indeed – Irving first made a name for himself with a book on the bombing of Dresden. He wasn’t minimizing it!
You are right he dosnt minimise the bombing of Dresden he goes as far as compairing the brave young allied pilots who carried out the raid to the nazi thugs that murdered jewish civilians in cold blood! he makes me puke.