Is Hate Crime a Media Creation & Does it Discriminate against the Majority ?

[MW 590]

I'm not too keen on banning things tbh, even if I don't like them, it's a slippery slope towards a totalitarian state when only government approved views are allowed. One thing I would ban though is Wahhabism/Salafism, in fact, if I was in charge, I'd probably ban Islam from England completely. It's the only way to prevent terror attacks, paedo rape gangs & other crime. For me, protecting Brits from rape, terror or death is far more important than upsetting a minority of people who have plenty of other Islamic shitholes for them to choose to live in.

"Holocaust denial" has turned into an umbrella term that now also covers people who just want to question the facts. I think there are only a very small number of people who could accurately be called deniers & I question the 6 million number myself, amongst a few other things. I didn't used to, I just accepted it until I spent some considerable time looking at the hard facts that are available & I think that banning questions or discussion about the Holocaust is very wrong & actually quite dangerous. There is no other historical event that's illegal to question, so why is this one ?

I think that Muslims should be given the choice to assimilate into Western Culture or get deported. They should get surveyed on their views and those who believe in having Sharia law being installed in Britain or do not respect the age of consent law should get deported. The niquab that covers the entire face should be banned like it is in France.

What the term holocaust denial means is denying that the Nazis were committing genocide against the Jewish race as their Final Solution. There is overwhelming evidence of pictures, footage, and testimony from both the victims and the perpetrators that Jews, as well as Poles, other Slavs, and others were killed in extermination camps.

 

[Rancid Flid]

I think that Muslims should be given the choice to assimilate into Western Culture or get deported. They should get surveyed on their views and those who believe in having Sharia law being installed in Britain or do not respect the age of consent law should get deported. The niquab that covers the entire face should be banned like it is in France.

What the term holocaust denial means is denying that the Nazis were committing genocide against the Jewish race as their Final Solution. There is overwhelming evidence of pictures, footage, and testimony from both the victims and the perpetrators that Jews, as well as Poles, other Slavs, and others were killed in extermination camps.

That's what holocaust denial should mean but today it's also used as a slur against anyone who questions the facts. From my own research, I'd say there was a genocide against European Jews which could probably rightly be called a holocaust but I don't think 6 million were killed. If my opinion (which might be wrong) was broadcast to the world, I would be labelled a holocaust denier, at least in Europe & outside of England, I could face arrest & imprisonment.

 

[PinstripeLuns]

You can see my history and see that when people do admit mistake or are otherwise contrite, I do nothing but positively praise the response.

I wouldn't have rubbed your face in it if your response didn't sound like "so what!?", as in still refusing to acknowledge it. That's why the "actually problems" comment surprised me, as if the difference just established isn't actually a problem itself.

Typically when people recognize an injustice that previously escaped their attention, they don't still give a half-hearted defense. I mean, respond how you want to, but it does strike me as odd for someone that changed their mind as you say. Perhaps I read more into it and something got lost in interpretation, that's how it seemed to me.

Why else ask in regards to "actually problems"? Isn't this actually a problem? If there is one example that you didn't know about, how many more of them could be out there?

Ok, good for you. It's a problem for Lauren but like, come the fuck on. Oh no, we can't say "Allah is gay" but they can say "God is gay! Who cares? Why would anyone care? Ignore it. You can worship if you want, you think someone saying "God is gay" is really damaging? I get pissed when people say it, when people say "God is a woman" too, but what can anybody do about it?

Yeah, sure, not fair for people being unable to say "Allah is gay" and get off scot-free but why would you? To get back at people saying "God is gay"? Aren't you supposed to not be all wrathful and shit? OP just wants to be some kinda victim.

 

[ProgKing of the North]

I thought God loved us all

Not gonna lie, that's gay as fuck

 

[Lemmingwise]

I think that Muslims should be given the choice to assimilate into Western Culture or get deported. They should get surveyed on their views and those who believe in having Sharia law being installed in Britain or do not respect the age of consent law should get deported. The niquab that covers the entire face should be banned like it is in France.

What the term holocaust denial means is denying that the Nazis were committing genocide against the Jewish race as their Final Solution. There is overwhelming evidence of pictures, footage, and testimony from both the victims and the perpetrators that Jews, as well as Poles, other Slavs, and others were killed in extermination camps.

That's what holocaust denial should mean but today it's also used as a slur against anyone who questions the facts. From my own research, I'd say there was a genocide against European Jews which could probably rightly be called a holocaust but I don't think 6 million were killed. If my opinion (which might be wrong) was broadcast to the world, I would be labelled a holocaust denier, at least in Europe & outside of England, I could face arrest & imprisonment.

I'd hate to disagree with you both here, but holocaust itself is defined as the systematic state-sponsored killing of millions of Jewish men, women, and children.

If for instance, the early lowball red cross death count of under 30,000 would shown to be accurate, it would no longer meet the definition.




Encyclopedia Brittanica:

Cambridge dictionary:

Oxford dictionary:

What Rancid Flid is right about is that the definition of "holocaust denial" includes claims of the genocide being exaggerated.

For example, the jewish David Cole mostly took umbrage with the fact that newly built buildings were presented as original gas chambers at auschwitz (and they admitted as such in his documentary).

It's weird that just 6 months ago I saw this video on youtube and someone had the comment (paraphrasing) "Huh, look at what show could be made in the past, that wouldn't be possible today!", I thought the comment was hysterical exaggeration, but now the video isn't even on youtube anymore.

vasili

David Cole and Mark Weber on Montel Williams debate the Holohoax 1992

www.bitchute.com

Pointing out such a thing is holocaust denial, in practice. People have been sent to prison for such claims.

 

[Rancid Flid]

I'd hate to disagree with you both here, but holocaust itself is defined as the systematic state-sponsored killing of millions of Jewish men, women, and children.

If for instance, the early lowball red cross death count of under 30,000 would shown to be accurate, it would no longer meet the definition.




Encyclopedia Brittanica:

View attachment 912823

Cambridge dictionary:

View attachment 912827

Oxford dictionary:

View attachment 912831



What Rancid Flid is right about is that the definition of "holocaust denial" includes claims of the genocide being exaggerated.

For example, the jewish David Cole mostly took umbrage with the fact that newly built buildings were presented as original gas chambers at auschwitz (and they admitted as such in his documentary).

It's weird that just 6 months ago I saw this video on youtube and someone had the comment (paraphrasing) "Huh, look at what show could be made in the past, that wouldn't be possible today!", I thought the comment was hysterical exaggeration, but now the video isn't even on youtube anymore.

vasili

David Cole and Mark Weber on Montel Williams debate the Holohoax 1992

www.bitchute.com

Pointing out such a thing is holocaust denial, in practice. People have been sent to prison for such claims.

I suppose that the word 'holocaust' is a bit like the word 'racist' in that it's definition can vary between people & sources. I used it, rightly or wrongly, to refer to the mass-murder of Jews & if this definition is correct, then it'd be fair to use it for gypsies & other minority groups who were killed en-masse during WW2. I get exactly where you're coming from though & what Holocaust with a capital H refers to.

Thanks for the video, I'll watch it tomorrow. Interesting to see that it's from as long ago as '92 & I'm sure we couldn't allow such a debate to be televised in Europe during current year. That would be too much for many people & would immediately be branded as anti-Semitic before it was even broadcast.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

Hate crimes are something that our society is really sensitive about, because the 1960's are the only part of U.S. history that's given any depth of coverage in most of school.

Complete, utter tripe.
Most US schools do a very extensive cover of everything up to around Reconstruction and then peter out.

 

[MW 590]

I'd hate to disagree with you both here, but holocaust itself is defined as the systematic state-sponsored killing of millions of Jewish men, women, and children.

If for instance, the early lowball red cross death count of under 30,000 would shown to be accurate, it would no longer meet the definition.




Encyclopedia Brittanica:

View attachment 912823

Cambridge dictionary:

View attachment 912827

Oxford dictionary:

View attachment 912831



What Rancid Flid is right about is that the definition of "holocaust denial" includes claims of the genocide being exaggerated.

For example, the jewish David Cole mostly took umbrage with the fact that newly built buildings were presented as original gas chambers at auschwitz (and they admitted as such in his documentary).

It's weird that just 6 months ago I saw this video on youtube and someone had the comment (paraphrasing) "Huh, look at what show could be made in the past, that wouldn't be possible today!", I thought the comment was hysterical exaggeration, but now the video isn't even on youtube anymore.

vasili

David Cole and Mark Weber on Montel Williams debate the Holohoax 1992

www.bitchute.com

Pointing out such a thing is holocaust denial, in practice. People have been sent to prison for such claims.

I suppose that the word 'holocaust' is a bit like the word 'racist' in that it's definition can vary between people & sources. I used it, rightly or wrongly, to refer to the mass-murder of Jews & if this definition is correct, then it'd be fair to use it for gypsies & other minority groups who were killed en-masse during WW2. I get exactly where you're coming from though & what Holocaust with a capital H refers to.

Thanks for the video, I'll watch it tomorrow. Interesting to see that it's from as long ago as '92 & I'm sure we couldn't allow such a debate to be televised in Europe during current year. That would be too much for many people & would immediately be branded as anti-Semitic before it was even broadcast.

I’ll watch that video, but the person who uploaded it is clearly biased as shown in the description of the video. The 6 million number comes from estimates of the Jewish population from before and after the war. They estimate that more than 5 1/2 million died, which has been rounded up to 6 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial#Jewish_population

5 1/2 million is still a huge genocide and matches the Cambridge and Oxford definitions of the Holocaust. I don’t think it is illegal to say that 5 1/2 million died instead of 6 million.

 

[Lemmingwise]

snip

I think you'll find it an interesting video. The topic and origin of the 6 million number comes up around at the 9 minute mark in the video.

 

[Rancid Flid]

I’ll watch that video, but the person who uploaded it is clearly biased as shown in the description of the video. The 6 million number comes from estimates of the Jewish population from before and after the war. They estimate that more than 5 1/2 million died, which has been rounded up to 6 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial#Jewish_population

5 1/2 million is still a huge genocide and matches the Cambridge and Oxford definitions of the Holocaust. I don’t think it is illegal to say that 5 1/2 million died instead of 6 million.

That Wiki article is pretty useless as an argument though because it only seems to list the world population of Jews, not the population of Europe. The genocide was against European Jews, so citing the worldwide numbers is irrelevant.

The plaque outside Auschwitz has had the numbers changed at least once, possibly twice. So why hasn't the 6 million number been revised & lowered ?

From what I've read on the subject, the Soviets vastly inflated the figures for deaths at concentration camps & it wasn't until the Berlin Wall came down that anybody in the west got to see the real records of numbers.

 

[MW 590]

I think you'll find it an interesting video. The topic and origin of the 6 million number comes up around at the 9 minute mark in the video.

I got to the 9 million mark where Mark Weber points out that the number came up in the Nuremberg trials and then cites a professor who said that the estimate is crude. He then diverts the topic by talking about the memorial museum, and the number of Americans, British, and Chinese who died in the war. I’ll continue watching.

That Wiki article is pretty useless as an argument though because it only seems to list the world population of Jews, not the population of Europe. The genocide was against European Jews, so citing the worldwide numbers is irrelevant.

The plaque outside Auschwitz has had the numbers changed at least once, possibly twice. So why hasn't the 6 million number been revised & lowered ?

View attachment 913336

From what I've read on the subject, the Soviets vastly inflated the figures for deaths at concentration camps & it wasn't until the Berlin Wall came down that anybody in the west got to see the real records of numbers.

How many died at Auschwitz is a different matter than how many died overall as there were other major camps. Raul Hillberg estimated that 1.1 million Jews died in Aushwitz all the way back in the 1950s.

The idea that decrease of the European Jewish population is less than the estimated 5 1/2 decrease in the world’s Jewish population, is far fetched because that would mean that there would be a significant reduction of the Jewish population outside Europe and there wasn’t a genocide going on outside Europe.

 

[Rancid Flid]

I got to the 9 million mark where Mark Weber points out that the number came up in the Nuremberg trials and then cites a professor who said that the estimate is crude. He then diverts the topic by talking about the memorial museum, and the number of Americans, British, and Chinese who died in the war. I’ll continue watching.

How many died at Auschwitz is a different matter than how many died overall as there were other major camps. Raul Hillberg estimated that 1.1 million Jews died in Aushwitz all the way back in the 1950s.

The idea that decrease of the European Jewish population is less than the estimated 5 1/2 decrease in the world’s Jewish population, is far fetched because that would mean that there would be a significant reduction of the Jewish population outside Europe and there wasn’t a genocide going on outside Europe.

Hillberg estimated 1.1 million ? That doesn't prove anything though, it's an estimate. The Auschwitz death toll can't be a different matter though can it ? If they originally said that 4 million died there, then reduced it to 1.5 million, then surely this would affect the 6 million number ?

Like I said earlier, I question the numbers & a few other things & while technically, this shouldn't make me a Holocaust denier, legally, it does. Is it right that questioning a historical event should be illegal ? I've no problem saying that Jews were subject to a genocide but just because I have a few unanswered questions, I'm a criminal in most of Europe. Which is crazy IMO.

 

[Foxxo]

Complete, utter tripe.
Most US schools do a very extensive cover of everything up to around Reconstruction and then peter out.

I'm talking about the formative years, before junior high. I agree with you for high school, though my AP U.S. teacher was great.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I got to the 9 million mark

Heh.

You might note the harsh resistance just for questioning the 6 million though, so mentioning Hillberg makes sense, which you seem to agree with.


Anyways, I'm curious to hear your guys thoughts after seeing it.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

I'm talking about the formative years, before junior high. I agree with you for high school, though my AP U.S. teacher was great.

In that case, then in my school we were taught Colonial/Revolutionary/Antebellum in fourth grade and Civil War in fifth grade.

Junior high history classes had a very wide array of subjects, including things like the great African empires (Ghana, Mali, and Songhai), Mesopotamia, the Hellenic world, and the Byzantines.

 

[MW 590]

Hillberg estimated 1.1 million ? That doesn't prove anything though, it's an estimate. The Auschwitz death toll can't be a different matter though can it ? If they originally said that 4 million died there, then reduced it to 1.5 million, then surely this would affect the 6 million number ?

Like I said earlier, I question the numbers & a few other things & while technically, this shouldn't make me a Holocaust denier, legally, it does. Is it right that questioning a historical event should be illegal ? I've no problem saying that Jews were subject to a genocide but just because I have a few unanswered questions, I'm a criminal in most of Europe. Which is crazy IMO.

It means that a higher number of people died at other camps. When I mentioned Hillberg, I was demonstrating that the Soviet plaque that says 4 million was never used as an accurate historical source by western historians, so the replacement plaque with lower numbers does not lower the number of 6 million.

I do not know how much education there is in most Europe that answers your questions but I assume that in Germany, there is extensive education on the subject that answers all those questions, making deniers without excuse.

Heh.

You might note the harsh resistance just for questioning the 6 million though, so mentioning Hillberg makes sense, which you seem to agree with.


Anyways, I'm curious to hear your guys thoughts after seeing it.

I watched the entire video last night. I mentioned my observations of the first 9 minutes in a previous comment.

The revisionists were slam dunked when survivors came on the show and talked about losing most of their families and knowing about the gas chambers.

 

[Lemmingwise]

The revisionists were slam dunked when survivors came on the show and talked about losing most of their families and knowing about the gas chambers.

Thank you for your thoughts.

Considering all the provably testimony that was accepted as proof at Nuremburg (things like making people into soap) that were later proven to be untrue, I didn't find their testimony by itself convincing. Particularly since they were unable to answer Cole's questions and responded to some reasonable comments by calling him a denier.Pparticularly in light of some of the glaring inconsistancies shown by Cole's Auschwitz Documentary (I found Weber a lot less convincing than Cole).

I also found it very telling that the audience holocaust survivor started to make an argument that the Ukranians kinda deserved to be genocided by (soviet) jews for being collaboraters to Nazi Germany during the war. That was the most glaring inconsistancy in my eyes, that on the one hand someone affirms a genocide, but has questions about the details and is villified for it and on the other hand someone defends a genocide and doesn't receive flak for it.

I guess your mileage varied from my own. I appreciate the comments and to read your view.

 

[MW 590]

Thank you for your thoughts.

Considering all the provably testimony that was accepted as proof at Nuremburg (things like making people into soap) that were later proven to be untrue, I didn't find their testimony by itself convincing. Particularly since they were unable to answer Cole's questions and responded to some reasonable comments by calling him a denier.Pparticularly in light of some of the glaring inconsistancies shown by Cole's Auschwitz Documentary (I found Weber a lot less convincing than Cole).

I also found it very telling that the audience holocaust survivor started to make an argument that the Ukranians kinda deserved to be genocided by (soviet) jews for being collaboraters to Nazi Germany during the war. That was the most glaring inconsistancy in my eyes, that on the one hand someone affirms a genocide, but has questions about the details and is villified for it and on the other hand someone defends a genocide and doesn't receive flak for it.

I guess your mileage varied from my own. I appreciate the comments and to read your view.

So are you suspecting that every survivors was lying? That is absurd because there are many more survivors who gave testimony of the genocide going on in the camps.

I do think the comment about the Ukrainians deserving to be genocide was stupid. The genocide of many Ukrainians by the Soviets called the Holodomor actually happened a decade before the war and it was the reason why many Ukrainians collaborated with the Nazis in the war because they understandably considered the Nazi invaders to be liberators.

 

[Lemmingwise]

So are you suspecting that every survivors was lying? That is absurd because there are many more survivors who gave testimony of the genocide going on in the camps.

This is literally impossible, as different survivors contradict each other (there are also survivors who talk about how kind the german prison guards were, in helping to set up theatre plays and the like. For a less incendiary example, there are also numerous significantly contradicting accounts about the layout of the camps from survivors).

Of course considering the vast amount of people involved it also isn't strange to have such wildly different accounts, but there are also some accounts that directly contradict each other.

What it means is that I don't find testimony by itself proof and that some testimonies are accurate and some are false.

Though the fact that they were unwilling to honestly talk with Cole and instead label him a denier, though his comments and questions were very reasonable, is what suggests to me that these specific persons are closeminded in their approach and likely to be acting/talking in bad faith.

To get back to the original topic, I think that's the problem with any form of hate speech legislation, in that they're comparable to blasphemy laws in some ways, where honest good faith inquiry can be labelled hate speech and can be either prosecuted or censored.


PS. you are right about the holodomor happening before. For some reason I always seem to think that happened after. Makes even less sense to use nazi collaboration as a defense for the holodomor in light of that.

 

[ProgKing of the North]

The way I look at it is this:

Is the current leader of a democracy likely a dumb cunt with an ugly face who gets to say retarded shit on TV all the time? Probably, every President during MY lifetime has been. Is it likely that the leader of a democracy is a power-hungry narcissist that is in in it more for the money and/or ego boost than genuinely caring about the people of the country they purport to lead? Most likely, imo. Would the only reason that I'd piss on most politicians if they were on fire be that the asshole waiting in the wings is probably even worse? Again, the answer is yes.

But here's the rub. A dictator is all that and worse, plus you're stuck with the asshole. I don't like Clinton, Bush, Obama, or Trump, but at least they're all very different varieties of asshole. If I'm stuck being ruled by some cunt, I'd rather it be a dude I only have to deal with for a maximum of 8 years before I have a whole different set of things I hate about a dude to bitch about. At least it's more entertaining, I'd be pretty pissed at Daddy Kim's schtick by now were I a Norkie.