Putin makes Holocaust denial a criminal offence punishable by up to five years in jail.

[uptheirons!]

If you're trying to tell me that jews making legally derived money in any context at any point in history is a sign of deviousness or sinister conspiratorial plotting, you are being antisemetic

Your examples are "look at these jewish families making money after historical targeting. COINCIDENCE?"

By that same extension, drawing comparisons to jews establishing business and family fortune in the wake of exile or targeted history does not draw sinister parallels to the holocaust by virtue of money existing in their family. That is also classic antisemitism playbook

You just used a lot of words to counter an argument that was never made <45>

That's called strawman btw

 

[MacDuffle]

You just used a lot of words to counter an argument that was never made <45>

That's called strawman btw

You know why you posted examples of jews making money, kid

And it wasn't a celebration of financial recovery in the face of a dark period in jewish history

It was to support a thread full of holocaust denial

 

[uptheirons!]

You know why you posted examples of jews making money, kid

And it wasn't a celebration of financial recovery in the face of a dark period in jewish history

It was to support a thread full of holocaust denial

You clearly didn't understand my post.

 

[MacDuffle]

You clearly didn't understand my post.

If you're going to pretend asking if jewish people making money after the holocaust is antisemetic is part of your Greatest Hits ITT I'm going to make fun of you

 

[uptheirons!]

If you're going to pretend asking if jewish people making money after the holocaust is antisemetic is part of your Greatest Hits ITT I'm going to make fun of you

If you're going to claim it's anti-semetic to point out that people are exploiting the Holocaust for financial gain when even many Jews agree with that then I'm going to make fun of you.

 

[bandicoot]

Everyone knows the Earth is a hollow sphere.

No, that's your head you're thinking of.

 

[bandicoot]

You trying to save face by claiming you were kidding only makes you look worse, my man.

He literally does that in every WR thread.

 

[MacDuffle]

If you're going to claim it's anti-semetic to point out that people are exploiting the Holocaust for financial gain when even many Jews agree with that then I'm going to make fun of you.

You sound pretty upset about jewish people making money if you're going to try connecting jewish financial recovery to a kill order carried out by a government that wanted to be a far from jewish as possible

They aren't holding hands.

Are you this upset about Armenians with money? Rwandans?

Making money in the historical aftermath of a disaster is easily the best case scenario in the wake of a massively powerful government trying to wipe you off the planet

 

[Trotsky]

You're picking and choosing who gets to be called an academic.

I don't give a shit who thinks or doesn't think the Holocaust was or wasn't of a certain proportion, but false equivalencies are always bad, and this is one. There is clear historical and academic weight towards one end and a whole lot of bupkis on the other.

 

[Gandhi]

Ha! Not only was I right- you and I have been around this block before:

here was the exchange of me giving you the benefit of the doubt (never again) a year or two ago:
http://forums.sherdog.com/posts/120991035/



And because I never get tired of this, apparently, here's a recycled thought I have:

throwing out a huge list of (mostly false) claims that have to be gone through one by one.

And while engaging the claims directly is often the most effective, when the logic is so strained and tranpearent, with an obvious agenda, often a simple "fuck you" should suffice.

 

[Fawlty]

throwing out a huge list of (mostly false) claims that have to be gone through one by one.

And while engaging the claims directly is often the most effective, when the logic is so strained and tranpearent, with an obvious agenda, often a simple "fuck you" should suffice.

There's probably some ideal mixture of both. I've done my part in responding to bad claims with evidence, but also use the "fuck you" treatment most of the time. Maybe like 20% honest, careful discussion and 80% "fuck you" is good. Against 9/11 Troofers, it's like 90% "fuck you" and 10% discussion. We should respect the danger of Holocaust denial enough to take claims somewhat seriously, but sometimes you just gotta sent some JDL goons to fuck up their kneecaps.

 

[uptheirons!]

I don't give a shit who thinks or doesn't think the Holocaust was or wasn't of a certain proportion, but false equivalencies are always bad, and this is one. There is clear historical and academic weight towards one end and a whole lot of bupkis on the other.

If all it is is bupkis then why the need to make it illegal? What's there to be scared of?

 

[uptheirons!]

You sound pretty upset about jewish people making money if you're going to try connecting jewish financial recovery to a kill order carried out by a government that wanted to be a far from jewish as possible

They aren't holding hands.

Are you this upset about Armenians with money? Rwandans?

Making money in the historical aftermath of a disaster is easily the best case scenario in the wake of a massively powerful government trying to wipe you off the planet

You still didn't understand my post LOL.

 

[Trotsky]

If all it is is bupkis then why the need to make it illegal? What's there to be scared of?

We don't need to make it illegal. Which is why like 95% of people answered "no" to the poll lol

 

[uptheirons!]

We don't need to make it illegal. Which is why like 95% of people answered "no" to the poll lol

Please explain this to that emotional fool who's been crying the whole thread.

 

[Trotsky]

Please explain this to that emotional fool who's been crying the whole thread.

When I popped in, you were implying that there was equal or at least comparable academic or evidentiary weight on both sides. That is not true.

I could be wrong, but I don't think he's disputing that banning is unnecessary.

 

[IloveTHIS]

That is just going to make those that are inclined believe that much stronger

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

throwing out a huge list of (mostly false) claims that have to be gone through one by one.

And while engaging the claims directly is often the most effective, when the logic is so strained and tranpearent, with an obvious agenda, often a simple "fuck you" should suffice.

Also known affectionately as a Gish Gallop.

 

[Fawlty]

That is just going to make those that are inclined believe that much stronger

Eh, there's a ton packed away in an assertion like that. Can you support it? There is also good reason to believe that confronting deeply convinced people with consensus facts to the contrary also makes them profess a stronger belief. It could just be that any energy directed toward a topic that a person is fundamentally and irrationally convinced about is more likely to make them believe.

 

[Gandhi]

You're picking and choosing who gets to be called an academic.

So is David Irving an academic or a hateful, lying, hack?

How about Ernst Zundel?

Maybe Willis Carto?

Or L. K. Smith, Austin J. App, Arthur R. Butz, William David McCalden, Fred Leuchter, David Duke?

He is not picking and choosing, he is stating basic facts. The American Historical Association, the oldest professional organization of historians has said quite directly “No serious historian questions that the Holocaust took place.”

Anyone who asserts that the holocaust was grossly exaggerated for Jewish propaganda purposes is not operating from an academic stand point. They simply have a hateful agenda and no allegiance to the truth.

I don't support silencing them, but the fuck if they are going be called academics.