Trying to revise the number down is denying that some number of millions of people died, and it's disgusting

You are doing it again.

So why isn't revising the number up disgusting?

Why do they think they're included in the figures? No-one is claiming there were no survivors.

See, that is a good question I actually tried to avoid because I do not know the exact proceedings. But as far as it was told to me: the Russians made a kind of "census" trying to count the exact numbers of people killed "under" Döme Sztója, They just weren't interested in actual numbers.

Edit: It is the same as trying to establish the numbers of Iraqis killed from US bombardments times 10.

I understand why survivors and their families want more specific details personal to them but that seems very different from questioning the 6 million figure. Its not like anyone thinks that's an exact figure and there are plenty of sources including records from Germany and other counties involved.

I'm not saying you are questioning the 6 million figure btw.

I share the wariness about people who question the established view about slavery and the holocaust outside of serious academia. Its not necessarily bad but there just doesn't seem to be any serious dispute and its hard not to wonder why they question it?

I feel somewhat similarly about people who do academic research into intelligence across races - why does anyone without an agenda do this.

So now we've moved on to Holocaust denialism? Jesus H. Christ this forum.

So who else besides AlexM has mr wookie and the gang mistakenly called racist or anti-Semite and will they ever stop doing it on their own? Swissmiss? Dueces? Jman? BruceZ?

Is Cytri a mr wookie attack gimmick? That user's posts concerning racism have been almost 100% hostile and content-less. That is more disgusting to me than arguing about the implications of arguing about the number of the tragically deceased. FlyWf junior, except without signs of intelligence.

I only ask because mr Wookies frequent silence on the matter of racism in recent time has also only been broken on occasion with scoffing questions and rarely substantive conclusions.

I continue to question mr Wookies judgement and leadership on the matter.

I would expect more from a 'supermod' than joining in with the popular crowd to beat on a "fool". I have gotten to know Alex and he is no bigger a fool than mr wookie. Even worse is doing so with poor reasoning and appeals to emotion.

According to the popular forum model would we should mock, question, and mischaracterize their posts on any topic. Provoking defensive emotional responses until they 'break'. Once broken we shall continue to beat them until they either leave or get banned. Only then will they have the motivation to seek change in thought and behavior. They can then return to the tribe and accept a life of mockery with a sense it comes from being socially responsible for the well-being of others.

Or we can deal with making mistakes towards other people like actual grown-ups with some measure of civilization and responsibility in our internet ethos. Actually behave like we share a value of mutual welfare and can tell who does not.

I have no problem thoroughly investigating any accusation of racism made by the usual crowd. The misinformation they create concerning the racist label simply calls out to be responsibly managed. They fight with the wrong people and open themselves up to real criticism. Good thing it is out in the open.

Be sure to vote for spank in the forums' bad poster poll. I have the knowledge and experience about racism you can depend upon. You can see I stand for accuracy and humanitarianism seven days a week. A vote for me is a vote for sheer irony and laughter is great medicine.

Why? The figure is obviously false. It has to be. And why should anybody not accepting it be accused of being something something?

Yeah, so? Do you accept the US numbers of Iraqis killed? What will we talk about in the future. One million? 100'000? It is a political question in the end, and I hate that. Doesn't mean I bat for either one of these exact numbers.



I am. I kinda think these numbers should be irrelevant though. Just that you try to be nice and give me the out of saying: "of course it was 6 million" is a problem.

And I wonder what the lack of serious dispute outside of academia does to academia. The motives of anybody questioning "accepted truth" are irrelevant. It is just their arguments that have to be disputed because their arguments are bad. Maybe their questioning "it" in lack of any serious dispute is exactly the reason you should take them seriously. It is all a question of how seriously you take and how much you allow for false positives.
I happen to think that slavery still is a problem because "we" never really solved the moral problem but just tried to placate it by political means. So what now? I question the established view about slavery. So it is hard to wonder why I question it? Same goes for the holocaust.


I would agree. But it is pretty easy in this case, because the agenda has to be to establish race as a meaningful concept in the first place. Other people have already succeeded.

Expand?

I have to quote Nathaniel again:

Its not intended as an exact count so refusing to accept it doesn't really make sense. Someone who is questioning whether its indicative of the scale might be being reasonable but its not the most likely explanation.

I agree that there's no excuse for certainty about the motives. That's plain ridiculous.

If in the future historians generally agree on an indicative figure based on records and there's an obvious bad reason to question it then I will be wary of people who question it outside of academia.

If you're saying you believe the number isn't indicative of the scale then I suspect you are weird (or worse) unless you have a damn good reason to believe it isn't. Casual counting by the Russians wouldn't suggest the figure isn't indicative.

If you're just expressing a general skepticism to everything then that's an explanation.

Nothing. I'm confident in the academic world these things are looked at in tedious detail. If some new source is found that changes the view significantly then it will be big news.

Its not as easy as that. We all suffer from biases and its extremely difficult to neutralise them even assuming we try. A lot of people don't even try they just argue for whatever they prefer, and its useful to distinguish between arguments based on trying to understand with people who are solely pushing their prejudices.

Bad arguments I'm fine with disputing. I'm not in any way supporting those who object to pointing out arguments are bad just because racists or whatever also point out they are bad.


If there's no body of work supporting another view then the only way to challenge the view is to do academic research but it seems just about all those who do academic research come up with the same answer. This is about matters of fact not opinion.

I disagree. 'We' have solved the moral problem as much as any moral problem can ever be solved. We have a practical problem remaining.

It depends what you're questioning. Not everything is covered so clearly by the established view and not everything is about facts. Questioning motives of politicians is always fair game as far as I'm concerned, questioning what they did if its an established fact can become weird.


That's not the agenda I have in mind. The obvious agenda is to establish one race is superior to another (or to disprove that's the case).

Hey there's no ****ing way that Holocaust denial is OK even in unchained

LOL jesus that quote from "Nathaniel" is like SMP in a ****ing nutshell though.

Always great to see SMPers chiming in to educate us lesser politards about how BruceZ isn't racist and also Holocaust deniers get a bad rap from the Jew-run media who try to silence them with spurious claims of anti-semitism.

Good for swiss and spanky to cut through that bull****, and all without any actual research. Just the combined powers of low-to-mid 80s IQs and multiple DSM diagnoses.

At least swissmiss finally took a position on something!

Wasn't swissmiss telling us about how she got called an anti-Semite on Swiss television or something but it was really all just a big misunderstanding? Wow, can't imagine how that ever happened.

Oh bull**** I just google to see what "Nathaniel" swissmiss was on a first name basis with and it's an abolitionist and progressive columnist from the 19th century.

No. No. Swissmiss, you don't get to quote a good person. You're a ****ty person, you get to quote other ****ty people.

His writing style is explained by it being 1830 when he wrote it. You people try to write like that today. It's a weird affectation, a desperate attempt to adopt the trappings of intellectualism without actually being able to add 2+2. Like how you're a ****ing moron with no worthwhile ideas, but you still manage to write these 600 word manifestos of nothing.

FFS you morons were impressed by CALCULUS

Yup. She's dropped a few hints like that form out of nowhere. She's just dying to let loose with a holocaust denial rant, but she knows there's a small chance that could get a banning.

Seems like a good spot for a SMP thread on the probability that Holocaust death figures are accurate.

I want to hear her ideas.

I am going to guess secular Jew who doesn't think that the prize for surviving genocide should be that you get shipped off to the middle east to have your own little separatist country.

Have no idea if that is accurate, but it is so much fun to guess based on people you have known in the past.

You've glossed over the part where she thinks the number of holocaust victims was grossly overinflated by mainstream historians for as-yet undefined reasons.