The Greatest Story Never Told

[Bittersteel]

Questioning the holocaust, which you so perfectly displayed, is illegal in many countries and can result in either fines or jailtime. Am I allowed to question the extermination of 8 million christians in Ukraine by the communists? Yes I am, why should I be thrown in jail for saying "These numbers don't add up, this seems unlikely" about the holocaust?

When asked what the germans have done to the jews, you must also ask what the jews have done the germans. This is very important to understanding the holocaust and why it happened. This could however be portrayed as "excusing the genocide of the jews".

So let me be clear, even if I think the holocaust happened, you should without a doubt be allowed to "deny" its existence without fear of repercussion.

[Gurgumul]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[njames89]

Why?

Don't you think people should be able to say whatever they want? I mean otherwise who gets to play the language police and determine what is and is not offensive?

[IR_Kuoin]

Jews weren't gassed.

[Gravoth_iii]

Deny the existence of a major historical event in a print publication, broadcast or other media without sufficient evidence? Denial for the sake of denial, or an anti-intellectual exercise to see how far you can push 'muh freedom of speech'.

Maybe you could argue that pig-headed denial is a human right or something. Maybe it is. But what's the 'pro' argument for the publication and exportation of this denial?

Forget 'people should be able to...', I think that people already can do and say anything they want. Anything at all. But everything has repercussions, and if you don't consider your surroundings and context before acting then maybe you go to jail or maybe win the Darwin awards. That's a fairly general rule for the world we live in. If you crave attention and wish to deny the holocaust without sufficient evidence for no particular reason you can do so. Some places you'll get arrested. Some places you'll get beaten up. Some places maybe neither of those things will happen.

Questioning things based on evidence and outright denying something without evidence are not equal actions, they are not treated equally.

Even without evidence, denying anything shouldnt be something that can result in you going to jail. Flat earthers shouldnt be jailed for example. Im sure there are people that deny things based on nothing, just a gut feeling but should ignorance really be the grounds for punishment? Either way, there are some rather interesting contradictory things swirling around the holocaust, and to me they dont seem like straight up denial out of nowhere, but quite researched and logical ideas.

[Rest_in_Peace]

Jews weren't gassed.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[njames89]

Don't get me wrong I am really just playing dickheads advocate here. It's full retard to deny the Holocaust but I tend to lean towards free speech being an important right. Despite that it means more morons speaking aswell.

[Ikarus]

Deny the existence of a major historical event in a print publication, broadcast or other media without sufficient evidence? Denial for the sake of denial, or an anti-intellectual exercise to see how far you can push 'muh freedom of speech'.

Maybe you could argue that pig-headed denial is a human right or something. Maybe it is. But what's the 'pro' argument for the publication and exportation of this denial?

Amen

Don't get me wrong I am really just playing dickheads advocate here. It's full retard to deny the Holocaust but I tend to lean towards free speech being an important right. Despite that it means more morons speaking aswell.

Yeah, the problem is that a majority of people are mixing up "freedom of speech" with "I can spew anything at anyone"

[Gravoth_iii]

The exercise of spreading controversial things can help, if only to make people more aware of their studies, is it all actually correct? Is there any other side to the coin, and is it in any sense reasonable? How easily is it dismissed, maybe it actually does have something to consider. We should never get used to thinking that everything taught is correct, and should always question everything constantly (at least to a healthy amount).

Thought policing is terrifying, surpressing freedom of speech is too. You can spew anything at me anyday, i can dismiss it if i dont agree with it, but never ever would i want someone jailed for saying something to me that i disagreed with.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Evelyn Beatrice Hall.

[Gurgumul]

Let's say your grandparents were raped, tortured and humiliated in most brutal ways. Then some little bundle of sticks kid comes up and yells "holocause never happened xDDDD". Would you still respect his "freedom of speech"? It's one thing to be simply deluded like the flat Earth people, they don't really harm anyone, and sensible people know what's true anyway. But ignorant internet "scholars" who shit on your history for whatever reason are another thing.

[Gravoth_iii]

Let's say your grandparents were raped, tortured and humiliated in most brutal ways. Then some little bundle of sticks kid comes up and yells "holocause never happened xDDDD". Would you still respect his "freedom of speech"? It's one thing to be simply deluded like the flat Earth people, they don't really harm anyone, and sensible people know what's true anyway. But ignorant internet "scholars" who shit on your history for whatever reason are another thing.

Sure, why shouldnt i respect his freedom of speech? I simply wouldnt give a shit about what he says, he's just being a moron. Not like we live in saudi arabia or something, "you offend my religion? infidel, you must be whipped 1000 times!", just move on.

[njames89]

It's all just noises coming out of the mouth of an ape

[the real god emperor]

I was browsing till the beginning to find where the necro begun. There was no necro. Much disappoint.

It's all about the person who claims shit's influence on society, a certain group or you. If a known historian claimed that holocaust is a lie, you'd respect and listen as he is most likely more educated than you in the subject. But if you are confident in your knowledge, no matter how many edgelord kidz approached and said "holokost is lie XD" you would be invincible.

Like turks recently calling everyone navisitors can't see pics , please register or login
zis all around. We don't learn WW2 or NG in school. All my knowledge is internet learned so as every other Turks'.
The accusation doesn't mean much for us.

This whole thing I was trying to explain to people about Armenian Genocide few years ago, just to face a downvote spam

[Torben]

"Im Zweifel für die Freiheit"  is the credo of the peps of the first senate that made our constitution.  Translates kinda like "if in doubt,  decide for freedom (of speech)" 

The high court in this first senate had a really hard time figuring out if,  or if not to restrict the freedom of speech in this matter.  However,  in the end,  they where not in doubt:  their consensus was that the prevention of an affirmation of the NS reign of 33-45 is of paramount importance for inner and outer security.

my 2cents:  you have to see this decision in context:  although a nationwide dechocolate chip cookiefication was going on,  many of the people in power in post war germany where to some extent involved in the NS state.  A heap of the population was still indoctrinated with NS ideology,  and many germans still where convinced that a victory of NS ideology was possible.

the Federal Republic was a counter model to NS germany,  and as that couldnt tolerate falsification of the NS inheritance.  On an ethical level,   its just as important to safe guard these facts,  for humanity to have a chance of learning from it.  Zero tolerance towards denial seems a fair tradeoff for that effort.

edit:  "dechocolate chip cookiefication "

lol

[Gravoth_iii]

If you print slander in published media about an individual or a company, just something you've made up without evidence, you get fined obnoxious amounts of money in a court of law. Nobody gets precious about freedom of speech in this instance. A moron in public could still say these things, just not publish it as fact.

If you print flat holocaust denial without evidence in media then a court of law also decides your level of guilt (in some countries). Is this really so different?

Do they? It seems like thats been going on a lot over in the US, and all thats happened is that the news lost credibility, as they should. News outlets on the internet are constantly publishing a bunch bullshit, but its so easily dismissed that you just laugh at it and move on.