Working Definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion

Post Reply New Topic

"Fine" simply means "acceptable".

US Courts have already determined most "hate speech" to be acceptable (perfectly fine).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_spee ... ted_States

you are just being bloodymindedly legalistic. just because something is legal doesn't automatically make it morally right.

What's morally wrong is banning "Holocaust Denial" speech, simply because you don't like it.

It's a ban on human thoughts.

your definition of morality and my definition of it will never meet. we will never agree on anything.

Snap out of your psychosis please.

You know full well that I am not playing word games.

"Fine" is not exactly the same as "acceptable", and neither means the same thing as "legal".

A fine wine is better than an acceptable wine, and neither a fine wine, nor a mediocre acceptable wine would have been "legal" in the US during Prohibition. Both would be legal today.

If you are talking to a man from Mars. And this Martian needed pointers on social survival in countries on earth you would tell him that in the US "you don't get arrested for saying the N word, but saying the N word in public if you're not Black, is not socially acceptable". Or you might phrase it "saying the N word in the US is legal, but its not fine, or acceptable".

Similarly saying "Holocaust denial is perfectly fine in the US" is very misleading. Holocaust denial is legal, but espousing Holocaust Denial still gets you marginalized . So its less than socially "acceptable". Its kinda misleading to say that it's "fine".

But actually you are making a good point.

Folks who espouse Holocaust Denial can get sanctimonious, and play the martyr card in places in Europe were Holocaust Denial is actually illegal.

But going around the USA claiming that "Hitler was as nice as Santa Clause" gets you dirty looks, but not an arrest. So a Holocaust Denier cant play the martyr card here in the US.

I prefer people feel free to speak their minds, rather than cower in fear of what is "socially acceptable".

I would say the same for "climate change deniers", "moon landing deniers", "Earth is round deniers" ....

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary says that the primary definition of Decency is "polite, moral, and honest behavior and attitudes that show respect for other people." if only you would learn for yourself what DECENCY IS, you would learn what "fine*" really means.
*fine= in a satisfactory or pleasing manner. you are smart enough to know that it is NOT fine to insult people whose ancestors were slaughtered wholesale. when you are in favor of people openly denying that the Shoah happened, that is what you are in fact doing. insulting people is NOT fine, it is by definition INDECENT.

No it's not. You can think what you like at any time. You are not free to say anything to anyone at any time you want to. That distinction is the hallmark of civil society.

Holocaust deniers are proven liars. They can think what they like too, but spreading their misinformation is the moral wrong, because it is an attempt to distort truth and history.

If compelled decency was a thing, how would you know who was genuinely decent?

Also, this is circular reasoning. If I didn't belive the Holocaust happened, saying that my not believing in it happening is insulting to the people to whom I don't believe it happened to would be entirely moot. It's like threatening an atheist with Hell.




Possible. But when you deny them their right to speak (which is a principle that should be universally applied) you deny my right to hear them out, examine their analysis and see for myself where they go wrong. Wanting to hear them out and examine their claims in no way equates to accepting their viewpoint. On the flip side, banning speech and Writing because the content either makes certain people feel bad or because it clashes with the Approved and Acceptable Truth™ smacks more than faintly of ugly authoritarianism.

1. The ban extends to movies, books, any medium where you can express ideas. So, they are banning people from expressing and exchanging these ideas, which is an attempt to ban humans from thinking these ideas.

2. No one is a "proven liar" , because no one knows how reality works. I have made topics on here, where prominent physics suggest reality is artificial, so events like evolution might be artificial; they don't actually happen. What is true and not true is unknowable to humans. Socarates: "All I know is I know nothing".

I believe in freedom of speech and all that.

But thoughts....like those pertaining to Nazism, I really don't want to hear.

Why espouse Nazism? It doesn't make sense to espouse genocide, and to espouse an "Aryan" superiority.

Just like it doesn't make sense for Black Muslims to espouse the theory that white people are "devils."

The difference: The Nazis put into practice their desires for genocide

Freedom of speech does not mean that it is OK to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater - when there is no fire, and the shouter knows it.

Freedom of speech is not a license to toy with people, to troll them, to falsely accuse or discredit them, to manipulate them, to deceive them, or to seek to harm or hinder them.

I don't know when we - as a nation and as a culture - lost sight of the fact that rights always come paired with responsibilities, but man, have we ever lost sight of that. (And what's more, the responsibilities come first.)

The last time that people were silent against white nationalists, six million (plus) people were murdered.

In the US, it's legal to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater as long as it doesn't "incite lawless actions".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_ ... ed_theater

This topic is about banning "Holocaust Denial" speech even when it doesn't "incite lawless action".

So, there's no equivalence.


Public protests annoy us, they hinder us, they make us angry, the words hurt us, outrageous accusations are made against other people ("Rich are greedy" "Baby Killers", "Earth killers", "Cops are racists", "Gay people X&#&#&"....) .. just search google for "Westboro church protests".

However, in the US, we call it "free speech".

your freedom to swing your fist ends just shy of my nose.

So we agree that assault is and should remain illegal. That's good, I suppose. By what right do you tell me where to swing my tongue so long as it remains in my mouth?




It is your right not to listen. You don't have the right to deny other people their right to listen because you don't like what's being said.