Can you give us a quote? Because that's a very serious claim. I'm genuinely interested, because admittedly I haven't read it and Polish right-wing politicians are supposedly cordial with them.
Senter San
Maybe you just don't believe the narrative?
-- (djsenter):
Denying the holocaust? That's outright fucked. What do you gain from denying to acknowledge the extermination of millions of people purely because of their ethnicity/roots? We know exactly how the nazis viewed jews and how millions of victims died at their hands over the period of the war. What's next, are we gonna say that Gestapo didn't exist?
--
Chesterton, G.K. "When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing; they then become capable of believing in anything."
And what exactly of that narrative is so hard to believe? As someone who's visited a KZ several times, touching the ovens they burned the corpses of the people they killed, and who has apparently been educated about this topic a bit more proper at school, I can tell you, there is nothing to not believe about this, anyhow. And it is insane to me how people don't get this. If I just misunderstand you it might be worth enlightening me with a bit more than one sentence posts which don't really say anything.
-- (Fernando):
Maybe you just don't believe the narrative?
-- (djsenter):
Denying the holocaust? That's outright fucked. What do you gain from denying to acknowledge the extermination of millions of people purely because of their ethnicity/roots? We know exactly how the nazis viewed jews and how millions of victims died at their hands over the period of the war. What's next, are we gonna say that Gestapo didn't exist?
--
--
I never thought right wingers out of all people would consider holocaust denial some type of blasphemy. My rationale for this position is laid out in the quoted post below.
-- (Fernando):
The issue is from the pov of a holocaust denier the intentional slaughter of millions at the hands of the Nazis is not confirmed, in the same way that from the perspective of a trauma skeptic the event being called into question isn't confirmed. You have an issue with disputing the former, but seemingly have no objection to the latter even though the 2 are identical in kind. They only differ in the scope and scale of what they deny. But the same principle would apply to both no?
--
Chesterton, G.K. "When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing; they then become capable of believing in anything."
No? Because a trauma is something I can tell you about. Like I have a trauma of your nonsense posts, and if I told my grandma, she could say I don't believe that happened, you're dumb. But the fact Hitler killed 6 million people is confirmed and proovable. It is a fact like it is a fact you breath. There is evidence, where a trauma, well might have evidence or it might not, to be honest I don't think this comparison fits at all.
If someone tells me their family was murdered in front of their eyes, and this is confirmed via court and trial records, but I'm just not convinced of it for my own personal reasons, would it be immoral for me to express skepticism?
Chesterton, G.K. "When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing; they then become capable of believing in anything."
But tell me, what else happened in the concentration camps you can visit today? I'd gladly invite you to germany to check them out if you haven't might change your opinion. Who's next with their crazy takes. How about Hitler was actually left wing? Oh boy, you rather don't talk about politics on Elten I think. btw, when did I ever say I was right wing?
Still, one vs 6 million. I wouldn't necessarely say yes, though if it is confirmed and you can request proov, which you usualy can then yeah, I'd say you'd be quite an ass if you'd still do so.
-- (Fernando):
If someone tells me their family was murdered in front of their eyes, and this is confirmed via court and trial records, but I'm just not convinced of it for my own personal reasons, would it be immoral for me to express skepticism?
--
Why is the scale/quantity a relevant distinction?
Chesterton, G.K. "When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing; they then become capable of believing in anything."
Because you can maybe question the death of a single person, but not tons of them? I thought that was pretty obvious. Also, are you going to answer my question. Are the ovens for the corpses and the cells you can touch today just there because someone thought let's fake this all happened? WTF bro? Haven't heard something more retarted in quite a while.
I think it bares repeating that I am not a holocaust denier. I've done enough reading into the history of The Reich and the war to know exactly when, why, and how the holocaust happened. I don't believe the same can be said of my critics.
Chesterton, G.K. "When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing; they then become capable of believing in anything."
The quantity is a relevant distinction because it just is?
-- (Jonathan):
Because you can maybe question the death of a single person, but not tons of them? I thought that was pretty obvious. Also, are you going to answer my question. Are the ovens for the corpses and the cells you can touch today just there because someone thought let's fake this all happened? WTF bro? Haven't heard something more retarted in quite a while.
--
Chesterton, G.K. "When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing; they then become capable of believing in anything."
Yeah, if you really wanna pretend you're that lost then yes. Exactly.
That's the argument you made by saying it's just "obviously" a relevant distinction.
Chesterton, G.K. "When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing; they then become capable of believing in anything."
If you want to argue over the veracity of the narrative I can get my denier friend to make his case on here, otherwise this isn't a question I need to answer since I, once again, am not a denier myself.
(Jonathan):
Because you can maybe question the death of a single person, but not tons of them? I thought that was pretty obvious. Also, are you going to answer my question. Are the ovens for the corpses and the cells you can touch today just there because someone thought let's fake this all happened? WTF bro? Haven't heard something more retarted in quite a while.
--
Chesterton, G.K. "When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing; they then become capable of believing in anything."
Hot take: The post-1948 concept of a sovereign ethnostate in the Levant is fundamentally flawed and should be replaced by a single, secular, democratic state.
When you're stuck, just try harder.
Dissolve Israel? Based.
Chesterton, G.K. "When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing; they then become capable of believing in anything."
@ 41, after some research, I realize I need to reword my point. What scares me is the underlying principle reflected in statements by AfD politicians such as Björn Höcke and other prominent figures in the party: the idea that people can live in Germany, be part of German society, and still be regarded as not genuinely German because of their ancestry, culture or origin.
Germany has historical experience with defining national belonging in ethnic rather than civic terms, and I think we have a particular responsibility to recognize that danger early rather than waiting until discrimination has already escalated.
More generally, I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea that people who are genuinely unsafe in their own country should primarily be treated as a threat to a wealthy, industrialized country, or denied protection because they are considered culturally incompatible. A state obviously has the right to regulate immigration. But for me, there is a fundamental difference between regulating immigration and treating a person's ethnicity or cultural background as a reason why they are less entitled to belong or to receive protection.
That is the kind of development I am worried about when I look at statements made by prominent AfD politicians.
God bless the European patriots pushing for remigration.
Chesterton, G.K. "When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing; they then become capable of believing in anything."
What i can regard is them wanting to not allow criminal and illegally settled immigrants to be here, which is completely valid. Also, in my memory, they also want to encourage immigrants to work more and not life of the state's money where possible. I'm saying where possible because some of course genuinely can't. I agree fully with that position.
A lot of people claim they want to export basically everyone, but where's proof? Where are the statements underlying this, and what are exact wordings from their papers you find concerning? Nothing wrong with the base idea.
-- (hozosch):
@ 41, after some research, I realize I need to reword my point. What scares me is the underlying principle reflected in statements by AfD politicians such as Björn Höcke and other prominent figures in the party: the idea that people can live in Germany, be part of German society, and still be regarded as not genuinely German because of their ancestry, culture or origin.
Germany has historical experience with defining national belonging in ethnic rather than civic terms, and I think we have a particular responsibility to recognize that danger early rather than waiting until discrimination has already escalated.
More generally, I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea that people who are genuinely unsafe in their own country should primarily be treated as a threat to a wealthy, industrialized country, or denied protection because they are considered culturally incompatible. A state obviously has the right to regulate immigration. But for me, there is a fundamental difference between regulating immigration and treating a person's ethnicity or cultural background as a reason why they are less entitled to belong or to receive protection.
That is the kind of development I am worried about when I look at statements made by prominent AfD politicians.
--
