Holocaust ... and other forms of Denial

It's capitalized anyway, in English, to differentiate it from a shared telephone landline.

You are missing the point, as deniers do. You mistake aspects of common reality, what all non-absurd lines have in common, for "lines" - rendering reality itself a kind of "Party line".

Why can't you guys ever figure out what an "ad hominem" argument is?
You are mistaken about the content, which makes your posting an attempted hijack of the thread.
There is no Party line involved here. I do not claim to fight fascism everywhere it exists. Absurd deniers are not necessarily fascists. And so forth - the entire barrage of crap there is as false as it is irrelevant.

That's the kind of question this thread should be dealing with, in my opinion. My initial take is: sometimes.

If the absurdity is backed by power, no - that's going to be ugly. So in some cases absurd denial is clearly immoral - it misguides power.

But that is not always the case. To note one, obvious: We know that the common absurd denials draw in the mentally ill, often temporarily. Are their ravings always harmful, morally bad? Was John Nash's Holocaust denial - to pick a public example - harmful to anyone but himself? Apparently not.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry. It was not my aim to diminish your Party line in such a way.

No. Claims about reality, true or wrong, are irrelevant. This is like discussions about dark matter here. There is even some mainstream position, together with non-mainstream alternatives, but those who disagree are, if personal attacks start, attacked only as stupid, uneducable, not as morally evil.

What I argue about here is very much about various forms of denial. The key question, for example, what distinguish harmless disagreement about whatever (say, dark matter) from denial. What distinguishes them is not the content, not the absurdity, it is the political interest behind the question. Once there is no political interest behind dark matter theory, there is also no dark matter denial.

Yes, in this case those worth to be named "absurd deniers" (in its usual, common sense meaning), given all the Nazis openly posing for pictures with Nazi symbols, given the parliament which openly makes the UPA founding day a holiday, naming streets after Bandera, and greeting each other with the UPA greeting, are the Obama supporters. But we do not have to use here common sense meaning, but the Party line. And the Party line supports the Ukrainian fascists. And, who wonders, therefore Party soldier iceaura makes an exception for the Ukrainian fascists - they have, last but not least, heavily supported Hillary Clinton - but fights, instead, Trump as a fascist. Therefore there is no such animal as "denial" of Ukrainian fascism. "Denial" is reserved for enemies of the Party line. As "enemy of the people" was in Stalin time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They are central to this thread.

You missed the entire, central issue. Reality. The stuff that all the lines must account for - except the absurd denials.

All that was pulled out of your ass. There is no Party line here; I make no exception for Ukrainian anything; I fight Trump because he's in my government, my political responsibility; on my side of the Atlantic Ocean, and so forth and so on - once again wasting time dealing with garbage personal attack from the guy who complains about being attacked personally when he gets called on Holocaust denial, and AGW denial, and Jim Crow denial, and the like. If you want to add denial of Ukrainian fascism to the list of absurd denials for the thread, nobody's stopping you - since nobody here is denying Ukrainian fascism, and very few people here know much about it, it seems unlikely to add much - but it probably wouldn't hurt. Make up a name, make a case for its existence despite nobody here representing it, and the thread is helped instead of clogged.

You have a relevant issue to address, if you can drop the nonsense: you have the observation that absurd denial is potentially harmful, and the claim that denial of Ukrainian fascism is absurd. Combined, in context, that might make a contribution to the thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, I have argued that reality is irrelevant in this issue. I have given two examples, and quite different ones, where one could talk about some "denial", given the reality, but nobody is doing this. First, disagreement about scientific facts, if they are politically irrelevant. There are quite well-known and quite large groups of laymen who disagree with the scientific mainstream. A classical example are ether freaks. They are usually boring, after some time scientists give up to explain them relativity and restrict themselves to name-calling too. But they do not use a moral condemnation ("denier"), but words which question their mental abilities (freak, crank, crackpot).
The other example is the Ukrainian fascism. Here, the accusation of "denial" is not used because it is the Party line to deny (in the usual meaning of the word) Ukrainian fascism.

Here you have what joepistole writes about Bandera: "He fought Russians for Ukrainian independence and you don't like that, hence your attempts to misrepresent him. Per my previous references, the man clearly was a Ukrainian nationalists who fought Russian domination."
But he is, of course, not a denier. Who is the "denier" is not defined by reality, but by the Party line. And the Party line supports the Ukrainian fascists. So, only those who fight against the Ukrainian fascists can be "deniers".

 

And you have been wrong.

That's not why - certainly not in my case. I haven't said anything about it.

Who ever said he wasn't a "denier"? When did the subject come up? What are you even talking about?

 

I say. I explain how the word "denier" has to be used by Party line soldiers. Here, James R has correctly understood the meaning:

It does not matter at all what we claim. We are simply "the deniers". "Deniers" is a word which does not really need any specification, because "AGW deniers" or "Holocaust deniers" or "whatever deniers" are just unnecessary and misleading distractions. What makes a "denier" a "denier" is the disagreement with the Party line.

 

Again, another accusation without argument or evidence.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Now you're just lying. Show me where I've denied the Holocaust, climate change, or even that white racism exists. You can't because I have not displayed any of those behaviors. So until you can back up all those accusations, it is clear that you are the bigot, lying about people in lieu of any real argument or facts.

You only say that because your materialistic ideology denies any but a plethora of external causes for behavior. You'd actually have to make that case before that bare assertion would have any legs at all.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I don't know, but since racism is crucial to your argument...you tell me. Show us how already.

Oh, so you're really just avoiding supporting your claims again.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sure, we've been waiting for actual content from you for quite some time now.
I'm not holding my breath.

 

Only if you're old enough to remember those kinds of party lines and can't manage to come into the new millennium...where that usage of the phrase is completely obsolete.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

"The Deniers"

LOL

Actually, the correct word would be The Sceptics. One more time, no one is 'denying' that there are white, black and yellow racist. What we Skeptics / Scientists are waiting for is good evidence that white people, who fall into the category "racist", are having a significant effect on black people in the USA.

All of the good evidence suggests that it is IQ (brain function) that exerts the most significant effects on all people. Further, I am the only person to present actual evidence of structural racism, and it is directed against E. Asian Americans when applying to higher education. Biological IQ explains the socioeconomic status of all groups of people. It explains why Yellow people and Jewish White people are in the top socioeconomic tier, while low IQ White people make up the largest total number of poor. No need for conspiracy theories or armchair psycholoanalysis.


Further, think of it like this: Are you a white racist? Well? Are you? Because some progressive socialists would deem you are, regardless of what you think, see if you say no, you're one of "The Deniers". And, maybe it's subconsicous? Perhaps you'd like a little more than their belief that you are part of the oppressive male patriarchy? I don't know? Like, hmmmmm..... some good evidence other than their axiomatic superstitious-like beliefs.

So? Are you a White Racist? Or are you a Denier?

 

LOL, how topical, this was trending on YouTube:

 

WaPo: Two-thirds of Americans think that the Democratic Party is out of touch with the country.

To be fair, both wings of The Party are out of touch. And why wouldn't they be? So long as they have a State that can steal the produce of laborers (via income tax), then just like any other government (from Kings and other Dictators to Senators and Public 'Servants') they needn't have any contact with reality at all. It's completely the opposite in free-market industry where if you lose touch with reality, you go bankrupt; For an example see the Zune or Windows 8.0. Even the largest corporations change direction VERY quickly when the market signals its displeasure, whereas a government can run shitty services [see Government Schools] for decades and decades - hell, centuries, with each year getting shittier. No need to come in contact with reality at all. AAMOF the LESS contact with reality, the better your chances are of getting elected. See B.Sanders or Oblahblah for two wonderful examples.

 

I quoted you, at the time.

And you repeated two false claims: that absurd denials are of Party lines, that I am defending a Party line - or any other line.

You've spent pages trying to change the subject, so that you can demand evidence for some claims that you think would have been made. I'm going to stick with my actual posting, instead, as the issue has become more rather than less interesting - patterns are emerging in the defense of absurd denials.

If you don't capitalize the P, you risk losing the metaphorical meaning in English. Schmelzer wanted the metaphorical meaning. It's just a usage tip - he's posting in an unfamiliar language. This is changing, of course, in the direction of loss of clarity and reference and ability to communicate easily (http://www.partylinecentral.com ) - a trend we all see, but on a forum like this not one of much benefit.

And that is, once again, the absurd denial (of the nature of racism, of the "good evidence", etc). So we can proceed with the discussion with that denial assumed to exist.

We have seen - with argument and example (the 9/11 example) - that disagreement with any kind of "line" is not involved in characterizing a denial as absurd.

That is, we can and do separate the absurd from the reasoned among 9/11 "skeptics", the ones in conflict with arguable official explications from the ones in conflict with historical event or physical reality.

The unwillingness of absurd deniers to let go of the notion that they stand in opposition to some kind of biased or agenda-driven authority that wants to establish a "line" is deeply rooted, apparently. The absurd denier apparently needs a Party line to oppose, for some reason - if none exists in the vicinity, they will turn out and find one; if they can't find one, they will invent one.

 

QUARTZ: Europe’s youth don’t care to vote (because it's a waste of time)—but they’re ready to join a mass revolt.

Over 50% of the youth polled (over 500,000) would be more than happy to rise up and physically revolt against those in the establishment. IOWs, they're slowly coming to the correct conclusion that their BabyBoomer parents have screwed them over and would be more than happy to toss them out, physically if need be, in order to change the system.

Good

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh, and then there's this: Niall Ferguson, MA, D.Phil., is Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University and also a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He calls the BabyBoomers the Greediest Generation to have ever graced the Earth. Perhaps, the only way to 'fix' the socioeconomic problems facing the West, is to involuntarily force the termination of all public servants over the age of 55 (particularly those working in University), confiscate their pensions for redistribution and set up Happy Welfare Ghettos.... errr, Villages, for those who don't have families to look after them. Perhaps, that is the safest solution to the Boomer Problem

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The Baby Boomers should not expect future generations to pay for their current benefits.
-- Niall Ferguson

 

One more time iceaura, 'Michael' doesn't live in the USA, 'Michael' is outside of your category and sample groups, 'Michaels' existence is not needed for you to provide good evidence in support of your claim.

So, as they say, put up, or shut up

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

But since you did show up and post that good evidence, along with three or four other people, and I did quote it directly, that has been taken care of.

 

To add an "absurd" is, indeed, irrelevant, it may be iceaura's personal decision to add this. We have already clarified that the Party line is what decides about what is "denial" and what is simply harmless disagreement, absurd or not.

And, again, some more evidence of the nature of denial accusations comes from James R:

We see here again that what makes a "denier" is not disagreement with the facts. It is the refusal to support the Party line. You cannot get away by saying you have no opinion about a particular question. The accusation, what makes me a denier, is that "you still somehow can't bring yourself to admit". We have, again, a moral-laden word: To admit something is a moral obligation, to refuse to admit something is evil. What makes this Orwellian newspeak is that what one is morally obliged to admit are own wrongdoings or so. Not some claims or theories about reality. What could be a common sense context where one would be obliged to "bring oneself to admit" some statement about reality? This would require that one has made a different claim, and this different claim is not only wrong, but the evidence is so great that one would have to admit this. But without any personal involvement there would be no base to require some "admission".

My position is that of a scientist. That means, I make own statements only if I'm able to defend them myself. So, to make statements about WW II history, or AGW, or the effects of slavery, I would have to study the particular questions in sufficient detail. Once I have not done it, I make no definite statements. I can refer to the positions of others, say, the mainstream position, but this will remain in such cases a reference to a position of somebody else.

James R thinks what I do is evil denial. That means, he thinks that I'm obliged to submit to the Party line in all those questions where the Party line requires submission. To say "I'm not interested to study this question" is not allowed. I'm obliged to study it, and to admit that the Party line is the correct one. Ok, if I simply admit that the Party line is correct, even without studying the question (that means, if I lie by pretending to have knowledge I don't have) nobody cares. At least not now. (This comes later. At the university, I was studying mathematics, but nonetheless obliged to hear lectures and give exams for things like "history of the communist party" or "scientific communism".)

 

LOL

Oh, good, then you'll provide a list of citations to peer-reviewed manuscripts where we can see the data in support of iceaura's claim. That's great of you James, finally, someone is going to post something other than ad nausium claims without a shred of good evidence.

No citation.

Again, no citation.

Going to post a citation? I want to see the evidence that White Racism affects IQ. Given IQ is up t0 85% genetic, it's more likely that White Racism has no significant effects.

Chinese live in lead, noise and acid rain polluted cities, they make about 30% what poor Black and White Americans live on, yet they have higher IQ's (105). The evidence suggests this is mostly due to their genetics.

We have good evidence that the climate is changing, we have good evidence that Jewish were murdered during WWII, we have great evidence that IQ is predominately determined by ones genetics.

Do have a citation to back up this claim. Because all the evidence suggests the IQ actually lifts individuals up and raising their socioeconomic status in a single generation.

LOL

I have no idea what you mean by 'superior'. Perhaps you could define your term? Anyway, according to Race Theory, you are a racist - see, it's subconscious James. You wouldn't know if you weren't, you can only know if you are.

LOL

So far I see zero citations. Going to provide any Scientific Evidence in support of your assertions? So far, they are baseless.