Here's the parts you missed out:

This was a poster called Roddy123, subsequently banned:

then I said:

Roddy123:

me:

Elrazor:

me:

Elrazor:

me:

Elrazor:

Roddy123 later openly admitted to being an Islamophobe. No further comments from Elrazor on the matter.

Like I said, benefit of the doubt in the sense that Elrazor didnt say these things himself but appeared to agree with the poster who did.

Now just to bring this into relevance - we saw a guy post on facebook some very disturbing anti-semitic filth, we know whoever posted this originally is anti-semitic. But, we didnt see how the guy in question, Ball (?), responded to this, what his views on the matter were, what the content of the actual discussion was, so I think the benefit of the doubt should be given in that particular case.

Well since the topic somewhat lightly touched Holocaust denial, and in that context conspiracy theories, I wanted to make clear (which I presumably didn't, sorry for that) that the vast majority of the population is absolutely uneducated regarding the Holocaust. What I was saying is that most people would consider a true statement (2) about the Holocaust as false and borderline denial, while they would take a false statement (1) as true.

But sorry for the derail and for talking about such a delicate topic. I'll show myself out.

The reason why people objected is that most that suggest 'people are uneducated about the holocaust' are 99.99% of the time holocaust deniers. Yes, in my lay understanding statement #2 is correct, but what on earth were you trying to achieve by bringing it up?

It actually reminds me of the Ken Livingstone nonsense. I'm not qualified to say whether that's a reasonable interpretation of history - I'd hazard a guess that there's only a few dozen in the world that are, but what did he think the consequences of saying it would be? And what was the benefit of saying it?

massive difference between this weirdness and the Livingstone-hitler fiasco.

It would require significant study to analyse the relationship between zionism and fascism, there is no way Ken was going to get any subtle points across. It's interesting though, the Israeli defence force was originally known as the Stern Gang/Lehi which was a terrorist group to boot out the British from Palestine. They proposed unsuccessfully an alliance with Germany in 1940-41 (lol wiki citation needed).

It's a good point and copying the usa approach is absolutely not something I want to see in british politics.

There's still a vital role for the party in having standards for candidates/members but beyond that we need as a society to value democracy above the short term results and encourage as much participation in the debate over policies as possible.

This is a generous interpretation of the discussion on your part. What actually happened is you took a pasting from numerous posters, you tried and failed to reframe the argument to one you could win (i.e. Asian men are pedos) and then you eventually quit.

In sum, exactly the way this debate is going.

As far as giving me the "benefit of the doubt goes", I have said multiple times I don't think Asian men are disproportionately pedophiles. I'm 100% clear on this, and there is literally no counter evidence to suggest otherwise.

The fact that you lied about this in the first instance, retracted it, but then continued to throw shade reflect your own irrationality and inability to coherently hold a discussion, rather than any view I or others might hold.

Ken Livingstone is the epitome of a do-gooder and i doubt he has uttered an anti-Semitic word in his life. There are pro-Israeli lobbys that will jump on any chance to tarnish the names of known critics by playing on the anxieties of (mostly jewish) people.
I recommend watching Al Jazeeras documentary "the lobby" for some insight into the Israeli lobbys within Labour

theres a honeycomb of reasons for us to suspect Russia. interesting Q&A's on their twitter over the past month. we are lucky that big bad Russia have chosen to act amicably this time

real recognize real

Find these tweets rather incredible from a mainstream journalist (The Independent).

Wow. It's just really disturbing that she even thinks of building her argument by researching the number of people affected by anti-Semitism - as if this is some kind of defence/justification.

You are not 100% clear:

- You failed to address a hardcore Islamophobe and agreed with one of his posts with a full stop after quoting him
- You referenced this guy a second time, "However just because other people hold a different view and condemn the behaviour of these men, that does not make them racist."
- Just now you imply agreement with this guy with your 'other posters' comment
- you repeatedly slandered me as defending paedos and rapists (which you still maintain despite having zero evidence)

What I actually did was ask you a loaded question which you have refuted and I have apologised for.
I have provided evidence to explain where my view came from and demonstrated you are in murky waters. The onus is on you now to

a) distance yourself from the hardcore racist view of Roddy123 or else I can only assume you continue to agree with him
b) Apologise for your slander against me

You really have no credibility when it comes to defending Jewish people at this point.

Lots of "failing to do this" and "implying that" - why not judge my opinion on what I actually said, rather than what you think a certain post might mean, or what my views might be based on what I haven't said.

Basically, you're just making stuff up. I'll leave it to other people itt to decide who is credible and who isn't.

What you actually said in response to a hardcore racist was this. (the little dot after the sentence) So I can only guess that you agreed with him, and still do. Do you?
No apology offered for accusing me of defending rapists and paedos. Do you still believe this?

Anyone interested enough in my or your opinion can read the entire discussion and make their own judgements. I have no intention of revising a debate in which you were roundly beaten, just so you can deflect from the current discussion.

It's also interesting to note that me allegedly agreeing with a racist (with no reference to the content or context of that particular post) is considered enough evidence to brand me a racist.

Meanwhile, you defend someone (who you happen to agree with politically....) reposting holocaust denial material as:

So apparently, you require a different level of evidence for people you agree with, and a much greater level from those you don't.

Double standards much?

Why are you so interested in what other people think of the discussion, do you need someone to validate your opinions so badly?

You don't want to revise a debate because you are embarrassed that
a) you made a baseless assertion I defended rapists
b) you appeared to agree with a hardcore racist

The content and context is all there reposted and you can even look up the post number and see the whole thing from start to finish.
Show me where I brand you a racist. I am questioning your judgement on anti semitism based on your conduct in the previous discussion, which is inconsistent with a genuine opponent of racism. There is no allegedly about it, you agreed with him. Feel free to clarify.

Re the Facebook guy
a) don't know his politics so don't know if I generally agree with him. If he is anti semitic then I would be the first to call him out as I have done in the real world many times, putting myself at risk on occasion
b) didn't defend him, rather pointed out that the case against him as exposed on Jewish news was unfair
c) the key difference is that in your case we can see the whole conversation and you have the opportunity to distance yourself from a banned racist right now, if you wish
d) the guy distanced himself from the holocaust denial content, it's enough to hold back judgement prior to a proper investigation

.

Forums aren't private pm's, others read discussions and take a view on them. I'm assuming Elrazor has a view similar to myself when 'debating' with you, which is the debate with yourself is usually pointless, for various reasons as we've seen yet again over the past few pages, but that it's as much about making your own point for others who are reading and will hopefully join in any discussions.

Is this your response in full to all the substantive points I made?
I asked you a question, weren't you the guy...? You said no, I apologised. Then I dug up the actual info I half remembered, which you havent responded to. There is a question mark over you, that's not the same as branding you a racist.

Yes I've noticed you also invoke the wider judgement of 2p2 once you have run out of things to say.

It's my response to your offensive remarks, whereby you repeatedly assert or imply that I'm racist.

More a case of doing other things after making a point or addressing a question rather than wasting more time with a zealot who's beliefs trump any evidence to the contrary. As I was looking for an old post the other day I noticed similar points have been made by various people over the course of this thread.

What is more offensive

a) being called a defender of rapists and paedophiles
b) being accused of agreeing with a racist, with an opportunity to refute the claim

you have provided zero evidence for (a)
I have provided evidence for (b) above, and it's in the thread in full

Yet here you are wasting your time ganging up on the zealot.

Look, no matter whether you think Corbyn is an antisemite or not, there's no reason to ever defend people like this Alan person.
The fact that the Holocaust happened is undeniable. "Discussing" whether Holocaust happened or not is plain vile. And that's the end of it.