The power of the "Denier" label and people's confusion about the "Holocaust" / debate strategies?

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2256
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

The power of the "Denier" label and people's confusion about the "Holocaust" / debate strategies?

Postby Lamprecht » 1 year 1 month ago (Mon Dec 09, 2019 8:56 am)

You will often notice something if you ever get into a discussion/debate with ordinary people on the "Holocaust" - by "ordinary people" I mean those who have not read much about the "Holocaust" story and couldn't name a single "Extermination camp" besides Auschwitz from memory. Probably they will go to Wikipedia and read the first 2-3 paragraphs under "Holocaust" and sit back and say "ah, yes, makes sense, the experts proved it" at the beginning of a discussion with you.

But has anyone noticed that an enormous impediment to the discussion is, in fact, the "Denier" label? And I notice this also when I see these exterminationist "Debunkings" of "denier memes" (examples: viewtopic.php?t=12399) - they always just ridicule the "denier" position into one of absurdity which no actual published revisionist will defend - aka a strawman.
Take for example an imgur album by SirAaronRichards which includes a document on a list of Auschwitz guards who were executioners for some inmates, he says:
Oh I'm sure deniers will start rambling on about the fact that the word "execution" could mean a ton of various things, for example the execution of some harmless work-duty...
But "Deniers" claim there were executions at Auschwitz for many reasons. Death row criminals (murderers, rapists, etc) would be sent there for months of forced labor before being executed. And escape attempts and many other reasons, this was during a war.

Other examples of this can be seen in the laughable "21 questions for revisionists" graphic: viewtopic.php?t=12911

Or even the Weber / Hannity interview where it was said that "Deniers" deny the crematoria, shows them on video saying "This is what Holocaust deniers pretend is fake": viewtopic.php?p=93879#p93879

Or Lipstadt's new book, where she lies, saying "For deniers to be right, all survivors would have to be wrong" viewtopic.php?t=12271

You can only wonder if these people are doing this on purpose, or are just being deceived by someone who was doing it on purpose....

In these sorts of "Debates" with regular people, in many cases I find myself forced to waste half of my responses correcting people, saying things like:
- "Deniers" do not "deny" that Einsatzgruppen shot many people, including Jews in the East (disputing numbers and motives)
- "Deniers" do not "deny" that there were crematoria in the camps
- "Deniers" do not "deny" that Germans had anti-Jewish policies and forced them into ghettos and camps (disputing claims of "extermination camps")
- "Deniers" do not "deny" that there were piles of corpses and emaciated bodies, found and photographed during the liberation of these camps (disputing that they are gassed corpses)
- "Deniers" do not "deny" that there was a state-sponsored euthanasia program for mentally ill, incurably sick, and severely disabled people (has nothing to do with a "Holocaust")
- "Deniers" do not "deny" that that "Final Solution" was a real policy (it meant resettlement/deportation/forced labor)
- "Deniers" do not "deny" that a lot of people perished in the camps (disputing the estimated totals)
- "Deniers" do not "deny" that thousands of "survivors" testified about these things listed above, and many/most were telling the truth (albeit with some exaggerations and even lies; - fewer than 5% of Auschwitz testimonies mention gassings)
- "Deniers" do not "deny" that Germans committed some war crimes (like all other sides / they would have been the only belligerents to not do so if that was the case)

For some people you can list all of these things that aren't disputed and they will respond:
So basically you're saying the Holocaust happened?
Yet you are a "Holocaust denier" :roll:

Other times these people will insist "Actually some DO say that" (referencing a few teenagers posting online) - these sorts of people are just dishonest to talk to in general, so I just tell them there's no published revisionists claiming that.


What are your strategies for dealing with this?
The following images can be posted:
1. download/file.php?id=2364
2. download/file.php?id=2164
I think they do a good job of explaining.

You can also demand they define the "Holocaust" but they will be as vague as possible, and essentially it would be a definition which encompasses all sorts of things that are not actually disputed as pointed out above. It will be "Every seemingly bad thing the NSDAP did" or "every imagined/real/exaggerated grievance or misfortune befallen onto European Jews 1933-1945"

You could also you take a route where you:
1. (optional) reject the "Denier" label completely
2. State something like "Actually I do not 'deny' probably about 90-95% of the things which you consider to be the 'Holocaust' - whether you realize it or not" / "I only deny 5-10% of the so-called 'Holocaust' actually"

Another strategy is to just shift the debate into a specific sub-topic like:
- Only dispute/talk about Treblinka 2, Belzec, and/or Sobibor and the alleged mass graves there
- Only dispute/talk about Auschwitz gas chambers
- Only dispute/talk about the 6,000,000 number
- Only dispute/talk about the "Final Solution" policy (it's harder to pull this one off without straying into "general Holocaust debate")
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10241
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: The power of the "Denier" label and people's confusion about the "Holocaust" / debate strategies?

Postby Hannover » 1 year 1 month ago (Mon Dec 09, 2019 2:08 pm)

Lamprecht:
Or Lipstadt's new book, where she laughably insinuates: "For deniers to be right, all survivors would have to be wrong": viewtopic.php?t=12271

In that situation all one has to do is ask:
'What 'survivors? Give us names and tell us what they actually said in their own words.'

Chances are those like Lipstadt can't even tell you, or they will dodge because they know that what a "survivor says either contradicts laws of science and logic, or contradicts what other lying "survivors" say and / or the 'holocaust' story itself.

Of course the ultimate point to then make about "survivors" Is:
'You have just debunked your own story.
There cannot be so many "survivors" when it's claimed that 'the Germans tried to kill every Jew they could get their hands on.'

- Hannover

‘O, what a tangled web they weave when first they practise to deceive’
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests