
Should Holocaust Deniers be Heard? - yummyfajitas
http://popecenter.org/clarion_call/article.html?id=2493
======
raganwald
Denying the holocaust is right down there with claiming that the Earth is
6,000 years old and that humans saddled dinosaurs. Or that the Earth is flat.
Or heliocentricity. These arguments have already been debunked. Repeatedly.
Meticulously. Leaving no doubt as to their falsehood.

Raising these issues again and again, year after year, without presenting some
new startling evidence to re-open the case is a lot like a convicted killer
asking for a new trial without presenting any evidence of new information or
errors in the original process.

We are not saying that Holocaust denial should not be heard. It already has
been heard, it already has been presented for debate, and it has already been
defeated soundly and without doubt by rational persons.

At a certain point you turn to the Holocaust deniers and say, "Your argument
is wrong, and this has been conclusively demonstrated. Your position will not
merit re-examination and re-debate until you come up with new information and
new evidence, and the onus is on you to present it. Until then, your argument
has already had its time, has already been heard. It does not need to be heard
again."

We passed that point decades ago. So my statement is yes, Holocaust denial is
an argument that should be heard and it has been heard, it does not need to be
heard again.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Claiming a proof that 1+1=1 is right down there with claiming the Earth is
6,000 years old. This argument has already been debunked.

Raising these issues semester after semester, without presenting some
startling evidence to re-open the case is a lot like a convicted killer asking
for a new trial without finding new evidence or errors.

At a certain point you turn to the 1+1=1 crowd and say, "your proof is wrong,
and this has been conclusively demonstrated. It does not need to be heard
again."

We passed that point over a hundred years ago. Thus, the argument that 1+1=1
has been heard, and does not need to be a homework assignment in any future
"Intro to Proofs" classes.

See, this is the flaw in your argument. The conversation here is about
exposing students to these arguments as an intellectual exercise. The relevant
question to ask is not "can _someone_ debunk holocaust deniers/debunk the
proof that 1+1=1?". The relevant question is "can _this class of students_
debunk holocaust deniers/spot the flaw in the proof that 1+1=1?"

(Details on 1+1=1. <http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57110.html> )

~~~
Semiapies
I don't get the downvoting - this is pretty much the point of TFA, and it's
_valuable_. Ideas like these gain support in the first place because people
don't have the critical mindset to see what's wrong with them.

------
nihilocrat
The mountain of evidence pointing towards the Holocaust actually happening
means that we should indeed let deniers speak but any position they take is so
indefensible that it's more an exercise in observing human stupidity than
considering two sides of an argument.

~~~
kloncks
My main problem with this is the fact that it's actually a crime punishable by
jail sentences in many places in Europe.

Call it an observation of human stupidity, sure. But, last I checked, we don't
jail people for being stupid or saying stupid things.

edit: Something interesting I just thought of.

A lot of Islamic & Arab countries have laws in place that punish "insulting
Islam". A lot of these "insults" (see Jyllands-Posten) seem to come from
Europe, who advocate a huge amount of free speech. How can the laws ban one
instance of hate-speech and not another? Is Satire or Humor allowed?

Again, if anyone can shed light on this matter, I'd appreciate it, but in
countries like France or Germany, are there laws in place to protect against
all kinds of hate-speech or just specifically Holocaust Denial?

~~~
mduerksen
Yes, in Germany, open Holocaust denial is only one form of _Volksverhetzung_
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung>)

The reason that this is punished is _not_ stupidity. Publicly spoken words are
never just an personal opininion, but have the potential to influence other
people, and can lead to violent actions. In that case, the german constitution
holds that the safety and dignity of the targetted people (e.g. an ethnical
group) outweigh the personal freedom of an individual.

This trade-off has to be made somehow, and I would agree with the german
constitution: personal freedom ends where other people get physically hurt or
degraded.

~~~
burgerbrain
_"This trade-off has to be made somehow, and I would agree with the german
constitution: personal freedom ends where other people get hurt or degraded."_

Merely hurt or degraded? That is one hell of a low bar.

~~~
mduerksen
With hurt, I meant physically hurt, thanks for letting me clarify. Updated my
post.

~~~
burgerbrain
Ah, ok. That makes more sense.

------
Jun8
_Very_ interesting post, I would have loved to have taken this course, if only
to write a an essay giving an unequivocal "Yes" to this question.

It would have been great if he hadn't placed all the emphasis on the Holocaust
but also discussed two other well-known, widely believed denials: one
scientific ("Americans didn't land on the moon") and one very recent ("9/11
was actually planned by the US government").

~~~
cakeface
I'm curious whether your "Yes" is because you yourself deny the holocaust or
because you think that it is important to hear the other side of the story.

I will admit myself that while I don't actually believe it to be true, I often
take the denial side of the "Americans landed on the moon" argument. It is
always fun to challenge people on their long held beliefs and make them
rationally defend their position.

I've never personally found the holocaust denying evidence to be at all worth
parroting even for the benefit of theoretical discussion.

~~~
kenjackson
_I often take the denial side of the "Americans landed on the moon" argument.
It is always fun to challenge people on their long held beliefs and make them
rationally defend their position._

Do people actually try to defend it, or just write you off?

If someone tells me they're a holocaust denier I'm not likely to try to prove
it happened. The evidence exists if they cared to spend 5s looking. I'm much
more likely to just say, "OK", and then avoid at all costs, since frankly I'm
a little afraid to be around people with such beliefs -- since the belief that
it didn't happen is also strongly associated with "and if it did, it would
have been justified".

~~~
cakeface
Some people definitely write me off. The key to engaging them is not coming
off as if I believe it too much. Then they think that they can convince me.
When I come off as either an asshole or a conspiracy nut then people just
laugh it off.

I feel like its a good conversation starter and usually don't beat it into the
dust. Ask people if they really think we could go to the moon in 1969, before
we had personal computers or the internet and it at least makes them stop and
think.

------
iuguy
This is a very good article that really gets you thinking.

I would have to say that Holocaust deniers should be heard, and measured based
on their arguments. To shut these people out before their case is heard is (to
me) completely irrational. I might not like such people, but if these people
can present a rational argument that challenges my view of events, then I've
gained something. Either my view holds up on the basis of rational debate and
my view is reinforced, or I'm forced to question it by a greater logic. To
remove the voice of holocaust deniers is to remove that opportunity.

~~~
ugh
The essay question seems to be mainly about teaching. Things that are taught
have usually been through some sort of evaluation process. This evaluation
process is the right place for the voices of deniers’. If they manage to make
a convincing argument their views should certainly be presented to classes.

One of the things I would probably emphasize if I were writing such a essay is
that there should be no automatic process of exclusion but also no automatic
process of inclusion. Evidence matters and if deniers don’t have it their
views and voices have no place in classes.

------
kloncks
Are there any other notable examples of free speech that are banned by
Western-European countries?

I believe Holocaust Denial is officially a crime punishable by jail in many
places in Europe; was just wondering if the laws there had any similar stances
on other "free-speech" issues?

~~~
Luc
Hate speech: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech>

------
dkarl
Giving them a voice is inevitable, and beating them isn't hard. Just provide
point-by-point rebuttals and refer students to them. At some point, after
checking five or six stories, the doubter will realize the deniers are either
intellectually dishonest or eager to remain ignorant. The real damage is when
someone hears two or three provocative ideas from deniers and never learns
anything more. _Especially_ if people refuse to engage with them.

I put in my dues exchanging emails (over a period of months) about biology
with a white supremacist. He was a very bright guy just starting a law career,
and he didn't reveal his ideas to many people. I think he was impressed that I
was able to provide point-by-point responses to the claims he made about human
evolution. He was very well read in racist literature, especially the older
stuff from a time when more sophisticated people were still openly taking the
position that non-white races were biologically inferior.

He was under the impression that a lot of the points from those old books were
still unaddressed by "mainstream" biology, and the fact that I was able to
provide him with straightforward answers and pointers to further reading
discredited a lot of his current sources. I don't think I cured him of his
racism, but I did convince him that biologists weren't as stupid or
brainwashed as he thought they were, and that his sources of information did
not stand up to modern ideas, because they were obsolete in some cases and
simply ignorant in others. His tendency to believe in the superiority of white
people remained, but I destroyed his belief that the issue had already been
scientifically settled and was being ignored or suppressed by current
biologists.

Addressing the issues honestly is the only way to make progress. It's sad that
much of what is written about untouchable political issues is written to
gratify people who are eager to agree with the author and just need some
authoritative reassurance. "The Mismeasure of Man" is an egregious example. If
it included white supremacists (or just people who learned towards believing
in racial inequality) in its target audience, if it addressed itself to those
people with an intent to persuade them, it would have been a lot more useful.
Of course, it would not have won accolades -- it would have creeped people
out, because people do not want to see those ideas taken seriously. What they
want, and what "The Mismeasure of Man" gave them, is reassurance that those
ideas have been conclusively dealt with and can be ignored. But that doesn't
actually accomplish anything except providing some peace of mind to non-
racists. The goal should have been to shift the ideas of people who are
racist.

------
lamby
It's difficult to talk about this subject without mentioning the Faurisson
affair: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair>

------
DjDarkman
> Holocaust denial is inconsistent with critical thinking.

Wow, if I don't believe in the 'Holocaust', I'm not just an antisemitic, I'm
also stupid.

> If the mountains of evidence (records, photos, films, testimony, artifacts)
> which converge to support the currently accepted interpretation are not
> sufficient grounds for belief in its reality, then what would be sufficient?

Since people who dare say that they have doubts about the 'Holocaust' are
instantly labelled as antisemitic, I doubt that we will ever see evidence that
does not support the 'Holocaust'.

What baffles me about this 'Holocaust' story is that it defies logic:

The Germans rounded up hundred thousands of Jewish people and killed them,
while fighting both the Russians and the USA, just because they were evil.

You can conjure up mountains of evidence, but it still has plotholes.

Also in order to even begin understanding such a complex thing we require
continuity. Why would the Germans do such a thing?

Example:

A killed B.

We should convict A.

But wait:

A killed B, because B wanted to murder A's wife C.

It's not the same.

You may have evidence that A killed B, but that's still not the full story.

So my conclusion is: the 'Holocaust' is not something you can easily prove or
disprove of, it's too complex, we will never know what really happened because
it's impossible to question the 'Holocaust', without being labelled as an
antisemitic.

------
ajju
Everyone should be allowed to _speak_ , because America has freedom of speech,
but no, they should not be _heard_.

Hearing implies actually entertaining their absurd and ridiculous claims that
have been repeatedly proven false.

------
DjDarkman
For me the Holocaust is just like God. People tell you to believe it just
because they said so.

I neither deny nor confirm the existence of this so called 'Holocaust' because
I wasn't there when it happened. And we all know history is written by the
winners. I have witnessed first hand how much lies are contained within those
history books, that's why I simply don't care and don't believe anything they
say.

Also a lot of people died for stupid reasons not just the jews, I don't know
what makes them more special than anybody else.

Downvoters: please elaborate before just downvoting because I hurt your
beliefs.

------
Alex3917
"The reason for the capstone paper is to prepare students to recognize the
methods employed by malicious or unhinged deceivers: 9/11 truthers, religious
cultists, UFO abductees, and so on."

Like ad hominems?

~~~
roel_v
What group listed do you think are not malicious or unhinged deceivers?

~~~
Alex3917
Of the ad hominems listed, which do you think are actually groups?

~~~
roel_v
The only answer possible to your question is 'mu' because it is based on
flawed assumptions. However if I rephrase your question as 'which groups are
listed in the post', it's quite easy to answer:

    
    
        - 9/11 truthers
        - religious cultists
        - UFO abductees
    

Are these not groups according to you? I'm not sure what obscure point you're
trying to make.

~~~
Alex3917
"Are these not groups according to you?"

No, of course not. I have no reason to believe that, say, subjects who report
having contact with 'entities' after receiving cranial electromagnetic
stimulation in controlled laboratory settings are malicious:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nN3ggRgY7Ac>

Nor does it make any sense to claim that anyone who wants an intellectually
honest investigation into 9/11 is a deceiver. That's just ridiculous
1984-style propaganda.

These 'groups' are just a loose collection of people who have little or
nothing in common. Are some of these folks malicious or deceivers? Of course.
But putting them all in the same box is just willful intellectual dishonesty.

~~~
roel_v
There are two claims here: 1\. are these people 'groups' 2\. are they
'malicious or unhinged deceivers'

1 is easy - a 'group' is a collection or subset of a larger whole of people,
which all of the named categories are. This is a simple semantic issue,
completely uninteresting, but I still don't understand what point you're
trying to make by claiming these people are not 'groups', apart from the non
sequitur in your first sentence (when I say 'are these not groups', you say 'I
have no reason to believe that they are malicious'). Of course they're not
'organized' as in that they have no central authority and there is strong
disagreement about many things between them, but they're still 'groups'. But
again this is a wholly uninteresting question and I'm not sure why you brought
it up in the first place.

Then nr 2, the question was 'are they malicious or unhinged deceivers'. So
that means they're either 'malicious deceivers' or 'unhinged deceivers'. Many
(most?) are not 'malicious', but anyone who claims 9/11 was an inside job by
the US government _is_ 'unhinged'. (9/11 truthers are not 'anyone who wants an
intellectually honest investigation into 9/11', they're whack jobs for whom
nothing will ever convince them that they're wrong; much like the holocaust
deniers in the OP.)

They're also 'deceivers' because they all operate to convince as many people
as they can about their loony ideas, using all means possible. Repeatedly and
without willingness to engage in actual, rational debate repeating claims of
being 'oppressed', 'repressed' or 'silenced by the majority' is just the
beginning of this deceitfulness.

------
svlla
Mostly I think it's more a cultural quirk of some European countries and I
don't really care all that much. What bothers me more is stuff like this:
[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014271060_b...](http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014271060_busads19m.html)

------
jhamburger
One problem I have is that Holocaust Deniers, I think, realize that they
aren't going to 'win' the argument, they are mostly looking to plant the seeds
of doubt. They're not trying to convince you the holocaust didn't happen, but
they're trying to convince the public that the evidence is debatable in order
to weaken their opponents position. So giving them a voice is basically the
same as letting them win.

~~~
burgerbrain
You can't "give someone a voice", they have that right be default.

