Total posts: 2,806
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
I promise you that Timothy McVeigh never heard a good argument against his position.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
People come and go but honestly the only real value point this site has to offer is for white boys who hate too hard to be tolerated on the well managed sites
I am going to see what I can do to balance it out. I don't want to go to far in the other direction though. I think the value of this site is drawing in extremists to logically point out the flaws in their position before they take their ideology too far. Unfortunately we don't have very intelligent extremists here, other than the guy who fucks animals. He argues his position well, but ideally we would draw in simultaneously more intelligent extremists. Fivesix seems intelligent and open to logical cases against him for example. I have seen him reconsider his premises.
We just need to draw in people who can counter their narratives. Trust me, you don't want these people off the site and I forums where they hear no alternative philosophies, it's dangerous. For every Ted Kazynski on the site, their should be a ray kurzweil. For every David Duke there should be a Jordan Peterson to show them they are wrong.
The risk of course if extremists see the best arguments and can defeat them. It's a very real risk since the people here are so bad at arguing against them. For example if I took the ideology of the SCUM manifesto and debated 20 random users here, unless I got bored I would beat 19 of them maybe 20. However the doubt facing good arguments can give them is by far better than being in echo chambers of hate.
Created:
Posted in:
I'll help you get a claim from sir. I have nothing better to do
Unvote VTL sir
Created:
Posted in:
I don't think Austin knows what "policy lynch" means despite obsessively reading mafia guides before playing.
Created:
Posted in:
I also I don't care if BK is scum I won't be participating in any lynch of him this DP. Give a guy a chance to play the game.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
It;s been almost two years since Chauvin was convicted of murder, when you guys are still whining about something from over a year ago,
I just responded to the thread, I didn't start it.
Created:
-->
@Melcharaz
Doesn't blocking them prevent that. Harassment is also covered under what is being proposed. . if this isn't sufficient give me the language you want used to make sure this is addressed
Created:
-->
@Vader
It's not to late to alter some things before creating a meep. Speak now while you can
Created:
-->
@Double_R
None of us can know unless we have access to that classified Intel. He is claiming election fraud and we don't see evidence so where do you think he is getting information from to conclude it. There is only one logical explanation
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Is there a point you are trying to make, or have we reached the part of the conversation where you have nothing left and just start throwing out silly little comments to make this thread go away?
You mentioned representation. I assumed that meant you want to see people chosen for certain jobs based on their identity and not their qualifications. If not than what do you mean by representation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I think I picked up on some soft claims. I could be wrong
Created:
-->
@Bella3sp
I don't think females generally give a shit about wasting their time with mental masturbation. It's also why you see more male philosophers.
Created:
Posted in:
I think Ii know the theme already. Will wait for a few more claims to confirm
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I can’t claim vanilla cause I investigate guilty. It’s objectively beneficial to claim Miller DP1
Not claim vanilla. Look as far as I am concerned and I won't change anyone's mind so I don't think we should continue the conversation too much, Millers should be autolynched DP1, but anyone claiming miller at MYLO should not be autolynched. They should also not receive the benefit of the doubt. They should be ready behaviorally. On the rare and I mean extremely rare situation a miller is investigated, than they can just explain themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
So far my only townread is whiteflame for reasons.
Created:
Posted in:
Next time I am scum I am claiming miller DP1 unless there is a godfather in the scum PM. This is silly to get town credit for claiming you investigate guilty, it is even dumber to claim miller DP1 as town. Just keep it to yourself. If it is time for a mass claim, then claim it. Either way mass claims are probably happening in MYLO and the miller claim is suspicious whether you preempted the situation by claiming MYLO or not. also remember miller is basically a vanilla and it's better that they just work on getting townread to draw an NK so they aren't sticking around for tough LYLO situations
Created:
-->
@Double_R
And by "pushing woke agendas" what you really mean is standing up for minorities and being inclusive so everyone has a chance to see themselves represented. The fact that this had become toxic on the political right is an absolute joke.
Do we need more inclusion in the NBA balecause it is predominantly black or should it be a meritocracy?
even if they do overdo it sometimes.
Overdoing it is inherently evil. They should instead seek to be altruistic.
Created:
Anyone watching news during that time can remember Fox news also called the president a liar instead of taking a neutral approach. They took cut off his live feeds just like CNN did when he claimed he won. Even if he did lie the media couldn't know and were reckless for cutting off the live feeds. He has more access to classified Intel about election security than the media .
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Making himself president until 2036 could be because he really is the best man for the job and his country is too corrupt to replace him with a trustworthy person.
I haven't seen him become obsessed with his own insecurities. Like does he. Have bad skin or something and he has made laws stating nobody can say they noticed his skin was dry?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
To the extent corporations are feeling the pressure to think a certain way that's because that's what the population they are among wants from them. Not everyone of course, but most. That's all were seeing here. There's no conspiracy.
About 50% of America is conservative. Why is it most billion dollar corporations push woke agendas even at the expense of their own profits and obviously with great harm to the United States.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
So how often do mafia actually fake-claim miller on here or is Pie not practically clear?
If there is no godfather in the mafia PM it is a relatively safe claim that gets too much town cred. My opinion is they should never claim if miller and that millers who claim DP1 should be policy lynched unless they claim in a response to pressure.
Created:
I don't agree with taxes but I still pay them when backed into a corner.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Justification is that as a teacher I told my students that I was going to destroy the world but I taught good things to students and the government experimented on me to make me the way I am when in reality all I wanted to do was just teach.
I just learned about this the other day and was only half way through the movie so thanks for the spoiler alert
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Perez hilton. This is a play off of a name that is a play off of a name.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
just self vote so we don't have to drag the DP out
Created:
-->
@Double_R
so do you oppose them having the special tax status yes or no?
Do you oppose how liberals try to force corporations to be political on their behalf or is it better that politics is left to the people rather than billion dollar corporations?
I will get to the other stuff I just want to know where you stand ideologically so we can see if you are being consistent or engaging in motivated reasoning such as we have seen where there was an internal memo sent to lots of democrat politicians to oppose Trumps policies that they disagree with because they would rather americans suffer than have the wrong team get credit.
Created:
Posted in:
VTL Best.korea
He like dying DP1, why change tradition?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
That is the image I am trying to make my profile pic. Having struggles at the moment though
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I did what you requested
I appreciate that
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
He is one of those jack asses that can't just stick to a single user name
Created:
-->
@fivesix
Your thread is up
Created:
Examining these reports, I begin to doubt the legitimacy of or malicious intent in some of the incident details. I have picked some awkward ones from the year 2000 and you can judge for yourself; indeed you're going to have to, because in the reports there are no citations, references, or any other sources. In the later reports there are pictures, but there are no links to books or newspaper editions.
A student walked in to a Toronto high school classroom and claimed that he would go into a bar mitzvah wearing swastikas and saying Heil Hitler.
The Human Resources Manager at the National offices of B'nai Brith Canada received a phone message stating "This is Mr. Hitler calling about the position you advertised and I'm just... you can call me back and Heil Hitler."
A Quebec judge responded to a synagogue congregation's application for a building permit with the slur "You people took 40 years to get out of the desert and I won't tolerate those kinds of delays here."
One important thing I want to note: hardly any of these anti-Semitic incidents are of a violent nature (as understood by the reporting breakdown by category). Due to the lack of source material to verify their truthfulness, even police reports or incident numbers, I find it telling that harassment incidents far outweigh vandalism incidents. Vandalism is easier to perform and is usually done at night when nobody is able to witness it. Harassment incidents can be fabricated at will ("this happened to a person" or "this happened to me" and there is no way to know it happened via the report - we simply must trust the report (and with it lobby for the creation of laws).
“There are countless unreported incidents, because they are [considered] ‘minor’, but we should be aware that they exist.” - A mother commenting on an antisemitic incident at her son’s sports game. [http://bit.ly/3RUevoB, page 11]
Well, it seems to me that there isn't much more minor than harassment, especially considering the light nature of a lot of these reports. For example, quite a lot of them are jokes about stereotypes. While still considered a hate crime by the victim, these jokes are commonplace across all peoples and are laughed off or ignored as a matter of course: what would be more minor? So I'm not sure what she (if this unnamed mother exists) is referring to with her claim. I do agree when she says there are 'countless' unreported incidents - that is simply because it is not possible to count them, if they even exist.
On page 6 of the 1989 report, B'nai Brith uses the term "the fantasy world of Holocaust denial." A strange and inconsiderate way to refer to a route of critical thought so purportedly dangerous and hateful. Preventing persons from entering a fantasy world: does this warrant a push for legislation? Remember: an individual, representing B'nai Brith, wrote this; and an individual, representing B'nai Brith, reviewed this; then B'nai Brith published it.
Fast forward to 2021, and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs calls it a "pernicious form of antisemitism."[http://bit.ly/3IeVUAm] Pernicious means, according to Merriam-Webster[http://bit.ly/3RU9Pio], "highly injurious or destructive : DEADLY"
I show this comparison only to highlight the meaninglessness of subjective terms such as 'fantasy world' and 'pernicious' when no specificity is given. It is clearly prudent to omit them; but I argue that they are used at the time of each respective publication for convincing effect: style over substance; manipulative, journalistic, poetic wording that disgraces victims of tragedies such as genocide. I implore you to ask: has this same stylistic approach been used in the potential creation of incident reports? We can't possibly know that; and, I emphasise, we can't know, based on the lack of sources in the reports, and even based on the nature of the reports (e.g. the centre was 'phoned' with information), if they happened or if they happened the way they are written in the reports. See, am I now at risk of being called an 'anti-Semitic incident denier?'
In that same report (1989), on page 3, B'nai Brith make reference to a criminal case involving James Keegstra, who was "found guilty of promoting hatred towards the Jewish community by teaching Holocaust denial and Jewish conspiracy theories to his high school students." On appeal, the conviction was quashed "because of constitutional arguments." As they have not detailed or even specified these, I have found the public record of that case here[http://bit.ly/40PdQJ9] Those "constitutional arguments" are detailed in the case summary and outcome:
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the prosecution of a high school teacher in Alberta for anti-Semitic statements in his class was a reasonable and justifiable limitation on freedom of expression. James Keegstra, a high-school teacher in Alberta, told his class that Jews were evil and doubted the occurrence of the Holocaust. He was charged with willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group, which he objected on the grounds of freedom of expression. The Court upheld Canadian legislation under which the teacher was charged because it did not suffer from vagueness or broadness, and sought to eliminate racism and hatred.
Essentially speaking: in 1989 Canada had the legal provisions in place to criminalise Holocaust denial, albeit in this instance after appeal. If a teacher can be convicted of Holocaust denial, so can any other citizen under the law there; this was not about his being a teacher, rather about his speaking publicly.
So, in round 2 I will try to see, considering that they were already in place, if these legal provisions had any noticeable effect on hate crimes reported by individual Jews (I am counting Jewish businesses as individuals when a report is made by the proprietor, as that is how it is done in the reports). What I want to know is: is there a reasonable rationale for implementing additional legislation to criminalise Holocaust denial, and does that relate to potential harm levied on individual Jews?
Thank you.
Created:
"Holocaust denial is a form of hate speech because it willfully promotes enmity against an identifiable group based on ethnicity and religion."[Raphael Cohen-Almagor, Holocaust Denial is Hate Speech, AMSTERDAM L. F., Fall 2009, at 33, 35; https://bit.ly/3K0guFW, page 6]
"Holocaust Denial is a Form of Hate"[http://bit.ly/3jU6Dab]
"Holocaust denial is an act of hate"[http://bit.ly/3K4v53d]
"The primary motivation for most deniers is anti-Semitism, and for them the Holocaust is an infuriatingly inconvenient fact of history."[Geri J. Yonover, Anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial in the Academy: A Tort Remedy, 101 DICK. L. REV. 71 (1996);https://bit.ly/3K0guFW]
This type of statement is easy to find online. If disagreement, and objection, and desire to fill gaping holes left behind in history, is driven by a hatred of Jews, and Jewish leaders want this addressed, instead of pushing for legislation criminalising denial would it not be easier to commission a study to examine the claims of some of the more revered among the revisionists - whose arguments are almost completely ignored by mainstream historians - to put to bed their claims or at least objectively render them insignificant? Ignoring their objections and suppressing discussion thereof is not going to help reduce 'denial' and 'hate', and I argue it has gone the other way, in that people are now ignoring these repeated, baseless claims of 'hate' and hunting for the revisionist material they keep calling 'hateful': that it is censored and buried gives it more credibility when those calling it 'hate' repeatedly fail to address it directly. The longer I see this 'hate' propaganda without any seeming desire to attempt to sit down and discuss the revisionist arguments, the more I know attempts to criminalise denial originate in a desire to mitigate harm to popular history, caused by the glaring, unanswered questions on the Holocaust, not in a desire to mitigate harm to any individual, including Jews.
Carlo Mattogno, Germar Rudolf and Jürgen Graf are some of the more formidable names that are more likely to be attacked as characters than academically or scientifically challenged; a simple search on Amazon or Barnes & Noble will provide you with books about them or debunking them, or books by them not related to the Holocaust - but the original Holocaust-revisionism books written by them are alas unavailable - this is due to Amazon removing these books, not due to their breaking any laws - and you can see that for yourself if you navigate to amazon.com, put a USA ZIP code in, and perform the searches. A summary of this very Amazon action in a video here[http://bit.ly/3RTk6eL]
But when one digs up these books (http://bit.ly/3YK2gxe or http://bit.ly/3HT3lMm) one sees they are objectively scientific and/or critique-based in nature - claims of 'hate' and 'anti-Semitic' are no more than attempts to inhibit people looking for and reading these books lest they make their own decisions after examining both sides of the argument.
---
Back to Canada:
A more recent mention of the attempts to introduce legislation criminalising Holocaust denial is made in this 2022 article[http://bit.ly/3YLlxy3]:
Ottawa, ON – As part of Bill C-19, the Budget Implementation Act, the federal government has taken a stand against antisemitism in Canada by criminalizing Holocaust denial. This is an important development for Canadians, including the Jewish community who, spearheaded by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, have long been advocating for this change to the criminal code. The cross-party support for criminalizing Holocaust denial demonstrates the understanding among all parties that antisemitism is an insidious threat, and more tools are needed to fight it.Antisemitic hate crimes, the use of symbols of hate, and incidents of Holocaust denial and distortion are on the rise in Canada. Making Holocaust denial a criminal offence will raise public awareness of these dangers and provide the necessary legal tools to prosecute those who peddle this pernicious form of antisemitism.
Exactly how long they have been advocating for this change is not clear.
"Denying the Holocaust is a reliable predictor of radicalization and an indication that antisemitism is on the rise," said Gail Adelson-Marcovitz, Chair of the National Board of Directors of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA). "Rising antisemitism should be a concern for all Canadians because we know that what starts with the Jews never ends with the Jews. When antisemitism is allowed to flourish, it tears at the fabric of society to the detriment of all citizens.
"Holocaust denial is a reliable predictor of radicalisation" - well, of course it is, if the denial is a radical, or unpopular, notion.
"Holocaust denial is an indication that anti-Semitism is on the rise" - well, yes, that would make perfect sense, if 'anti-Semitism' is a label applied to any dissenting view on the story of the Holocaust.
These bloated press statements contradict themselves and, more importantly, are based on the presumption of right vs wrong. Holocaust right; dissent wrong. It's an archaic way of dealing with one of the most important events in modern history; and a typical argument against deniers is so untrue I could weep: "the Holocaust is one of the best documented events in history."
You can perform a web search for this claim and you will see many people saying it; but it simply isn't true. Did you know: approximately one third of all Holocaust victims are attributed to three camps (Sobibor, Treblinka, and Belzec) yet one revisionist claims we have no physical buildings at those sites, no physical evidence at those sites showing a genocide happened there, no bodies of victims, and only a handful of witnesses who claim to have been there when the Soviets arrived at the camps. This is detailed in a 4-hour documentary called "One Third of the Holocaust"[http://bit.ly/3E0uiwh] among other documentaries and books - perhaps if such claims were ridiculous, they should be given an unrestricted public forum so that they may be openly discredited. Instead, videos such as this are censored, blocked or buried from video-sharing websites like Youtube. There is a debunking site here[http://bit.ly/3YIfzy9] which makes decent, albeit presumptory and theoretical for the most part, arguments to the contrary - inspecting both source material and rebuttal should be permitted, so that we may all gain greater knowledge of this historical event through the differing opinions of others, considering that so much of the evidence begs interpretation before it may yield part of a conclusion.
A desire to censor and prevent open discussion on this topic is not only disrespectful to those who died, and to those Jews in existence today with relatives who died or went missing during WW2, but is a moral violation of the freedom to have and hold opinions, political or otherwise, and, more importantly to prevent isolation of groups from discourse, to share said opinions without fear of financial and legal repercussion.
The annual audit of anti-Semitic incidents is a record of reported hate crime incidents suffered my Jews in Canada. The reports are made by B'nai Brith Canada[http://bit.ly/3lqcbto] and are collected from several sources, including policing services and victims.
Created:
Counter-speech, essentially, is partial censorship via interjection, or prohibiting the display of material without the opposing material, an activity that is promoted in reverse for the story of the WW2 Jewish Holocaust - you can look anywhere for examples of this, and here is one[http://bit.ly/3YHwxN1] - you will find, on third-party (i.e. not Holocaust memorial organisations or pro-Holocaust NGOs) information about how to teach the Holocaust story to children without any mention of information that does not support their story, of which there is plenty, when one is able to find it.
Mr. Wolf reveals his intent repeatedly, perhaps without realising it:
Of course, US-based Internet companies make efforts to comply with local speech codes outside the US, but even where compliance is attempted, the sheer volume of user postings makes compliance difficult to achieve. Especially with an issue as complex as hate speech, technological filters play a limited role.
"the sheer volume of postings" -- at what volume does it become a common opinion? And who is he to decide how 'postings' translate to harm to individual Jews, something he doesn't appear to care about as much as aggressively suppressing any discussion of the Holocaust beyond the scope of the popular narrative. People do not change their opinions when their views are censored and their voices are silenced. Censorship will not reduce harm caused to Jews, especially now, in the digital age, when we are seeing increasing efforts by ADL and the like to silence dissenting voices, meaning only that people are not satisfied by answers they have been given and are still talking about it, spreading their thoughts, 'dissenting', so they say.
I fully believe that censorship cannot result in less harm to individual Jews. There is no benefit to be had with silencing, for example, 37% of millennials and Gen Zers in Holland, a country with Holocaust-denial legislation, who believe that 2 million or fewer Jews were exterminated as part of the Holocaust[http://bit.ly/3K95ohQ] - they are all breaking the law. It is argued repeatedly that 'education' is the key to improving Holocaust knowledge. But what education can be provided? Considering that these students already learn about this topic in school and still deny it happened that way, in a country that has criminalised open disagreement with the established history of this time.
Holocaust memorial museums are persistently uninterested in performing evidence-based research, e.g. forensic excavations and topographical mappings, in my opinion for fear that they will expose discrepancies in a not-so-carefully crafted 'twist of truth' - I can't think of another reason than disorganisation or inconsideration of the dead, other than the potential for imprisonment if they discover something that contradicts the narrative and are forced to publish it in their results. If they want younger people to believe what they say, horror stories and censorship only forces those they want to instruct to focus their curious and skeptical minds on a hunt for answers the museums and Holocaust centres do not or cannot provide, eventually discovering the buried posts of Holocaust revisionism; evidently a great number of these people are been convinced there is something amiss.
This survey reveals the troubling and unwavering desire to try to hit numbers of 100% across the board for Holocaust acceptance. This is impossible. Even increasing the numbers is going to be unlikely unless they start to bring out new evidence that counters what the censored/buried revisonist movement has been working on for decades, in the dark to most, including a large proportion of those surveyed answering positively to the questions, I argue, for I know many of them cannot have stumbled across the opposite side of the discussion - it is something that must be sought out, never presented. And if millennials and Gen Zers aren't so easily convinced there is something wrong with the story, what made them answer '2 million or fewer' despite that in school they are bashed over the head with '6 million'? I'll tell you what: hard, objective science and logical deduction, something that resonates in the minds of the youth. It's not hate. It's debate. And NGOs such as ADL do not want debate.
Even with censorship and name-calling ("hatemongers", "neo-Nazis", etc), the revisionist arguments start to leak out. If it is hate, I am confused - subjectively, of course - for I have not found one hateful revisionist in all my time studying this topic. Those who use the word 'hate' are infinitely more aggressive and rude and illogical in their words than those who don't. So without censorship on this topic - could there be more harm to individual Jews? Potentially. It's not easy to know. It is a wide-ranging topic with so much controversy. But I do believe open and accepted debate on the matter should never be criminalised or stigmatised, for it pushes discussions underground and they become siloed in camps, resulting in anger and possibly violent reactions to what these people understandably consider unwarranted suppression of their human rights, namely articles 2, 19 and 26.2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
Hypothetically, if the Holocaust were a lie, which I and most revisionists I have encountered argue is a ridiculous notion, considering the ambiguity and breadth of meaning of the term, would individual Jews be responsible for that? I and most other reasonable persons would not say so. It would be at the very least a lesson to be learned from and not let happen again.
It is almost impossible to predict what would happen. But it is clear to me that the goal of criminalisation is to suppress dissent rather than mitigate harm. There is desire to mitigate harm, inherently of this effort, to individual Jews, at the very least because those making the effort are Jews, who it can be expected do not wish to be harmed as result of Holocaust denial, and at the most to all Jews; but my argument is that this is not the foremost desire: if indeed it was, all discussion of the Holocaust would be either open and free or fully criminalised, not only the dissenting side, considering the unavoidable reality of the persistence of Holocaust denial across ethnicities, nationalities and ages, giving credit to legitimate doubt, not hate - unless, of course, everybody who dissents is hateful, and it is irrational to believe such a thing when one knows just how many people can be counted in the definition "Holocaust denier."
See here an article by revisionist Thomas Dalton, PhD.: http://bit.ly/3K4PDsm where he presents the results, originally posted on Techpedia[http://bit.ly/3RRBtN4][http://bit.ly/3RQ7S6S] of demographical research to attempt to count and gauge Holocaust denial worldwide. I believe the original source is survey commissioned by ADL, which is summarised here by region[http://bit.ly/3YLl3Ie] and here by summary[http://bit.ly/3YHwNeX]
Note that some countries are at such a low figure that it would be ludicrous to consider denial legislation in them and surely it would be counterproductive to introduce it to government, further marginalising Jews who exist there as extreme minority groups. But: is that the foremost rationale for Jewish NGOs not having attempted this? After all, they aren't stopping with their attempts to do this. Since 2012[https://bit.ly/3HLwFEs] it has been criminalised in five countries, with bills pending in the Brazilian congress for a sixth. Israel pushes it at the UN.[https://bit.ly/3DZgN01] Surely if this continues this will cause issues for the minority groups of Jews in the plethora of countries whose populations do not generally believe the Holocaust happened and is fairly described by history? For it does seem like a waste of time to introduce such legislation in a country whose population disagrees with the premise of such; in effect, to bring such an idea to a country, you say you think they are 'lost' or 'not getting it' or 'not educated.'
And that begs the question: are those in the countries in which denial laws exist more educated somehow than those in which it doesn't? A crude correlation, perhaps, but one worth mentioning.
Still, education is not working. Especially when people are thrown into cells in Germany simply for being an expert witness in a trial of a denier, for example. Yes, simply stating your expert opinion as an expert witness will get you imprisoned if the opinion hints at or forms a conclusion that the Holocaust is not fairly described by history. Seems a tad... unnecessary... if the true goal is to educate and not to censor and conceal and suppress dissent. If the Holocaust did happen the way they say it happened, there should be no fear of people finding out it didn't - but that fear is clear in the active persecution of critical thought in countries such as Germany.
India, for example, is presented at 7% of people who believe the Holocaust happened and is fairly described by history. Even if this figure is inaccurate, the words of ADL et al. would be laughable here. 93% hatemongers. 90% hatemongers. Even 50% hatemongers is absolutely ridiculous. And far less ridiculous than the notion of Holocaust denial sounds to those in the countries in which it is censored/suppressed that have never heard the counterarguments to the popular history, I am sure.
Saudi Arabia: 3%
Brazil: 59%
Peru: 39%
South Africa: 20%
Australia: 82%
China: 42%
Russia: 50%
Canada 87%
Turkey: 26%
Poland: 62%
France: 78%
Indonesia: 3%
Now consider some typical statements that attempt to paint a picture of hate and anti-Semitism where there is no logical, fair reason to do so - such statements serve to close the door to open debate and resolution of discrepancy in the popular history:
Created:
Hello all, fivesix am looking for a serious contender for his debate 'Holocaust-denial legislation is driven more by a desire to criminalise thus stigmatise dissent than by a desire to mitigate harm, resulting from Holocaust denial, to individual Jews.' (https://www.debateart.com/debates/4119-holocaust-denial-legislation-is-driven-more-by-a-desire-to-criminalise-thus-stigmatise-dissent-than-by-a-desire-to-mitigate-harm-resulting-from-holocaust-denial-to-individual-jews)
fivesix will create a new debate when he find a serious contender.
Here is fivesix's argument if you want to hash out some stuff in this thread as well.
Good day and good luck to my opponent, Sir.Lancelot.
I begin by introducing the nation to most recently outlaw Holocaust denial: Canada. Trying to find the first source of the push for this effort has been challenging. One of the earliest mentions I can find online is here http://bit.ly/3xeg2w6, page 17:
In September 1997, at the opening of B'nai Brith Canada's International Symposium on Hate on the Internet, co-chair Lawrence Hart, stated that,"The Internet may be seen as a great equalizer of information and disinformation, allowing Holocaust educators and Holocaust deniers to share the same legitimacy through search engines, bringing this pernicious form of antisemitism, racism and hate directly into the homes of children researching their history projects."
So here we have, 26 years ago, the internet, a tool of mass communication, being predicted to be "a great equalizer of information and disinformation". Yet today any dissenting views on the Holocaust are censored or buried across the internet, with many people unable to articulate a precise point of a Holocaust denier. They know they exist, but they know not what they say; and this pattern is repeated in this area of history, with dissenting views hidden but popular views promoted, even to the point where 'debunking' videos are available when the video or work being debunked is simply 'unavailable' as it is so difficult to find. So I suppose whomever has decided what side is disinformation has come out victorious, and we need not be so worried. Still, Holocaust-denial legislation is being pushed for worldwide, by the UN in 2022[http://bit.ly/3xecE4r] and by NGOs in the United States, arguably the last bastion of freedom of speech worldwide. From the remarks of Christopher Wolf, Founder and Chair, Anti-Defamation League Task Force on Internet Hate[http://bit.ly/3E0v90i]
... that is largely because of the legal framework in my home country, the US. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution establishes freedom of expression and protects virtually all speech, even the most repugnant such as Holocaust denial. The law may be used only if hate speech creates an imminent threat of violence or interferes directly with individuals' legal rights. Unlike in many countries, there is no human right to be free from the indignity of hate speech that can be balanced against another's right to free expression.I think it is fair to say that under the First Amendment, the US is a de facto a haven for hate speech, essentially free from the strictures of the law, and Internet content can be published in the US and broadcast to the world. Although a former French Minister of Justice loudly said "Stop hiding behind the First Amendment at an OSCE conference on online hate speech," the fact is that the First Amendment and its expansive effects are here to stay.
Mr. Wolf sounds irritated that the First Amendment exists, referring to it as a "haven for hate speech."
Mr. Wolf, it is a haven for free speech, some of which you may consider to be hateful; it is not a haven for hate speech, whatever that actually is.
Would Wolf rather the First Amendment was given an exclusion for Holocaust denial? I can categorically say: yes. He goes on to conclude with suggestions that the alternative to introducing Holocaust-denial legislation where he cannot do it is to censor and override dissenting views:
Instead of the law as a first resort, I urge greater focus on education and counter-speech, and greater involvement of Internet intermediaries. These tools, in the end, have greater potential to combat online Holocaust denial.
This is a key point. Mr. Wolf does not show regard for individual Jews in this essay. Mr. Wolf was the chair of the ADL task force on internet hate. Mr. Wolf mentions 'denial' over 40 times in this essay, while mentioning 'Jew' only 8 times, none of which referring to individual Jews and 3 of which being in this revealing paragraph:
I want to provide a brief code to the discussion earlier at this conference of the appearance on Google Search of "Jew Watch" when the search term Jew was used. You should know that after discussions between the ADL and Google, Google agreed to post a sponsored link adjacent to the Jew Watch search listing pointing out that it is objectionable and providing a discussion of anti-Semitism and a link to an ADL site. This is an example of intermediary cooperation and the use of counter-speech, which should be promoted and expanded.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
These things don't have to be mutually independent. Perhaps evolutionary processes caused them to have less testosterone, making them more agreeable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Women are shorter. I have always argued that women are more socially adept (manipulative) for the reasons they have to be to compensate for lack of physical strength.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I am surprised that you think removing corporate subsidies is a display of "big government"
This is where you can see the liberal hypocrisy come in. The second you do something that ideologically they agree with but it benefits the wrong team than you see the mask comes off.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I didn't say what you said is untrue. It could be true but back it up with some evidence.
Created:
Here is the wording in the current COC that I think would be used to address personal attacks
Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, are subject to disciplinary actions.
I would use it to give warnings to some current members who repeatedly engage in it and start escalating for every repeated attempt.
We also need to make sure these posts get reported otherwise it's possible for the problem to fly under the radar.
I personally have been failing because I don't report personal attacks against myself. I also avoid threads that I know will be toxic unless it is just a drive by post. I will see if we can get some reports in for repeat offenders.
Created:
I have reread this 100 times. It really is very difficult to use the linked current policy https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/rules
To crack down on personal attacks. The language around it almost makes it sound like some personal attacks will be tolerated.
If I was in their shoes I would interpret that language to mean a strong response to some of the stuff you mentioned they are what you can refer to as lawful neutral or lawful good so are very careful about how they act in regards to the written policy.
This new policy cuffs them in some respects while uncuffing then in respects to their ability to crack down on personal attacks.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
I'll see what I can do.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Added to my reading list.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
I agree and hopefully the moderation policy is a step in a direction that can help with that. The balance I am trying to create is between the two following things.
1. No debate topic or discussion topic is considered taboo. Right now the COC has terms such as "hate speech" written into it and I feel like previous mod teams used it as an excuse to push their ideology on the site. Moderators need to be neutral.
2. Create a much greater level of respect between users.
I have noticed Roosevelt has randomly attacked people and isn't interested in fruitful discussion. He certainly isn't the only one but perhaps the worst offender. My hands are tied until we pass this moderation policy which will let me pressure mods in the right direction, but I have a plan to utilize social pressures to deal with that problem if this doesn't pass.
Hopefully the user base responds appropriately to the new policy so that way we can gently guide discussions in a respectful direction as opposed to bringing down strict punishments.
I do want to keep discussions of specific users in the thread minimal, but the policy will make the site better to use for a lot of people and others will have to adjust their behavior to stay compliant with it.
Created:
-->
@Mps1213
Also you have absolutely 0 evidence fentanyl and methamphetamine were even active in his system at the time of arrest. Drugs stay in your blood for hours, if not days. Fentanyl is only active for about 30 minutes. Do you really believe it is impossible he was claiming that he was having trouble breathing because he was being pulled over, likely panicking, and had Covid? Have you never experienced panic before? It’s hard to breathe, add Covid to that equation, it’s very hard to breathe. He knew he broke the law and was probably going to get arrested and began to have a panic attack, like anyone else would.
I doubt he was panicking he was often arrested for example when he broke into a pregnant womans house with a knife and his other arrest videos show similar behavior of screaming for mommy and crying.
Despite that he was still pulled out of the car so he could breathe better and played on the ground. An ambulance was called because the cop was trying to save his life. There was a crowd forming so the cop hovered his knee above the throat of Floyd barely touching it so he could keep simultaneous situational awareness of the crowd and Floyd.
If the crowd had left the scene it is unlikely he would have had to hover his knee above the area where the back/neck touches, but he would have died anyway. The ambulance was called because of a medical emergency occurring before the cops pulled him out of the car. Whatever the medical emergency that was life threatening enough to call an ambulance instead of taking him straight to the hospital, it is likely that medical emergency caused his death and not hovering a knee above his neck/back.
The conspiracy that he was randomly targeted because he was black and the cop wants to randomly kill every black person he meets is insane and not likely representative of what occurred.
Created:
Fuck that, I am starting now
VTL badger
Created: