[Discussion]Holocaust Denial & The Trolling Rule

[Lunatic Goofballs]

It really boils down to "It's not what you say, it's how you say it." And that applies to opinions as well. As I've often said before, while in theory it is possible to argue the most atrocious and abhorrent of opinions without trolling, in practice the more radical an opinion is, the harder it is to express without trolling.

NeoColumbia up above provided a textbook example of this. The specific reasons why this happens vary, but generally follow along the lines of radical opinions having less factual basis from which to argue from; to the simple fact that those likely to sincerely hold such opinions tend to be incapable of arguing it without resorting to flaming their detractors or otherwise making sweeping trollish statements in their attempt to argue.

Holocaust denial is, in of itself, not automatically trolling despite being an opinion most of us would find horrible. However, I don't think I've seen a successful attempt to argue that which didn't wind up trolling or flaming in the process. In closing in on 12 years of modding here.

I suppose the question, then, is this:

How could you express an opinion that the Holocaust did not happen without it being trolling?

Hypothetically speaking, from an exploration of factual data. Population records, financial records, requisition orders. Of course in reality, they all support the history of the Holocaust. But hypothetically speaking, if contradictory data existed, a rational examination of that data might not be trolling.

[Nazi Flower Power]

I'm not sure we've got a general rule about about being badly uninformed or misinformed about history. Every so often, we get yet another poster trying revisionist Southern history, claiming that the ACW had nothing to do with slavery. And then, somebody posts big hunks of the various Southern states' declarations of independence, and they go away. But AFAIK, that bare claim doesn't get 'em smacked around for trolling, even though I'm sure that claim annoys -- to say the least -- some of the posters.

I wish they would go away after being presented with the Articles of Secession, but they usually don't.

Anyway, Confederate revisionism is annoying, but to get to the same level of offensiveness as Holocaust denial, they'd have to say slavery never happened at all.

[Nazi Flower Power]

It would still be trolling.

Can i get people banned for Calling me a Nazi? As the proper term is National Socialist wouldn't the continued use of the term Nazi be trolling?

Or does your thought policing only extend to things that are popular on this site?

"Nazi" is a pretty mild insult if you are actually National Socialist. That would be like me asking the mods to ban people for calling me "Yank" or "Yankee," even though I really am a Yankee.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

It would still be trolling.

Can i get people banned for Calling me a Nazi? As the proper term is National Socialist wouldn't the continued use of the term Nazi be trolling?

Or does your thought policing only extend to things that are popular on this site?

First: You don't 'get people banned'. You report them for suspected rulebreaking. WE get people banned.

Second: Trolling is an offense of intent. If in our judgment, someone is trying to anger or incite emotional responses, then they are trolling. The actual words or terms are all a matter of context. Depending on context, one could be trolling by calling someone a jelly bean.

Third: I prefer the term, 'cognition enforcement'.

[Jumalariik]

i.e. "If someone discusses something i don't like it's trolling."



It's not a Historical Fact, it's a socially engineered myth, that do to it's politcal conveniance has been supported offically by the Nations that won WWII.


The ones who pushed the Holocaust myth are the ones who politicized it


Right because jews never do anything to foreward their own interests, only evil Germans and other assorted Goyim do that.

I've always found the concept that calling the Holohoax a Jewish conspiracy as Crazy but the concept that the German people somehow orchestrated this major industry of mass genocide without any Germans (except those who got lighter sentencing by "admitting it") knowing about it couldn't possibly be a fallacious story.

Suprise suprise every German that denied it was either executed or imprisoned for life by the Show Trial of Nuremburg.



So what? I'm aggrieved when people make threads about how normal Transexualism is, or how incest and beastiality, cannibalism and all other forms of of human degeneracy and filth "aren't that bad".

I also like your admittance in the statement "whether truthful or not", it sounds quite similar to canadas "anti-hate/free speech laws" where apparently peoples fewing are held above the desire for truth.

It Really is hilarious the way you types justify such 1984 esque policies, and yet Dare to say that Fascism is oppressive, HA!


Lot of people died in the war but for some reason the deaths of jews is considered the most important why is that?


Try backing up your stories and "eye witness accounts" with actual evidence. And not evidence that jews were killed because eveybody had people that were killed but that gas chambers were actually a thing and how so many bodies could be cremated in such a short time period when the cremators could not hold the two people(even emaciated,let alone 5) at a time as was quoted by an "eyewitness".

And that most deaths that occured in concentration camps weren't from Thyphus or Starvation at the end of the war when Germany had no infastructural means to supply the camps anymore.


It's easy to claim to be right when opinion to the contrary is banned, kind of like holohoax denial now that i think about it.


Let me ask you this are you a Chosen or just a good goy?

Maybe your Joachim "Their is no German identity without Auschwitz" Gauck?

Jeebus.

The Holocaust did happen, there's fucking plenty of evidence that supports it. One of them being the fact that the Nazi were very good at record keeping.

Nanatsu, such a good and well developed reply. So accurate, so much evidence! Wait, so we should ban him for trolling for not believing in confirmed fact that has proof, but you give no such proof? Are you above proof? He gives proof, you don't need to give any, he should just be banned because you don't want to debate him?

[Jumalariik]

So, 911 truthers?
And what about United Marxist Nations who is a fan of the second biggest murderer to have ever lived?
Stalin killed a relative of mine, I don't think UMN should be punished though.

I'm not much of a fan of him, I think he did some good things and that his crimes are exaggerated (and I have time and time again provided evidence for this, so much so that I have written two factbook entries about it, both of which are well cited). That said, I do NOT claim that he committed no crimes, and I wouldn't dare to defend many of those actions (especially the Lithuanian affair).

Well, you missed my point. My point was this: if somebody had the same opinion of Hitler that you do of Stalin, they'd be warned for trolling if Natatzu got his/her druthers. I don't think that's fair.
With due respect, at least one of the "good sources" you provided was communist and pro-Stalin. (north star compass)
I don't want to get into a big argument because we have had good relations generally, , but I hope my point was made.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Jeebus.

The Holocaust did happen, there's fucking plenty of evidence that supports it. One of them being the fact that the Nazi were very good at record keeping.

Nanatsu, such a good and well developed reply. So accurate, so much evidence! Wait, so we should ban him for trolling for not believing in confirmed fact that has proof, but you give no such proof? Are you above proof? He gives proof, you don't need to give any, he should just be banned because you don't want to debate him?

He didn't get banned because of what he believes.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I'm not much of a fan of him, I think he did some good things and that his crimes are exaggerated (and I have time and time again provided evidence for this, so much so that I have written two factbook entries about it, both of which are well cited). That said, I do NOT claim that he committed no crimes, and I wouldn't dare to defend many of those actions (especially the Lithuanian affair).

Well, you missed my point. My point was this: if somebody had the same opinion of Hitler that you do of Stalin, they'd be warned for trolling if Natatzu got his/her druthers. I don't think that's fair.
With due respect, at least one of the "good sources" you provided was communist and pro-Stalin. (north star compass)
I don't want to get into a big argument because we have had good relations generally, , but I hope my point was made.

Nanatsu doesn't decide what is and isn't trolling. The moderators do.

[Jumalariik]

Nanatsu, such a good and well developed reply. So accurate, so much evidence! Wait, so we should ban him for trolling for not believing in confirmed fact that has proof, but you give no such proof? Are you above proof? He gives proof, you don't need to give any, he should just be banned because you don't want to debate him?

He didn't get banned because of what he believes.

I'm saying that that is what Nanatsu seems to want.

[United Marxist Nations]

I'm not much of a fan of him, I think he did some good things and that his crimes are exaggerated (and I have time and time again provided evidence for this, so much so that I have written two factbook entries about it, both of which are well cited). That said, I do NOT claim that he committed no crimes, and I wouldn't dare to defend many of those actions (especially the Lithuanian affair).

Well, you missed my point. My point was this: if somebody had the same opinion of Hitler that you do of Stalin, they'd be warned for trolling if Natatzu got his/her druthers. I don't think that's fair.
With due respect, at least one of the "good sources" you provided was communist and pro-Stalin. (north star compass)
I don't want to get into a big argument because we have had good relations generally, , but I hope my point was made.

And the others were a combination of the Soviet Archives, scholarly articles, etc.

[Jumalariik]

Well, you missed my point. My point was this: if somebody had the same opinion of Hitler that you do of Stalin, they'd be warned for trolling if Natatzu got his/her druthers. I don't think that's fair.
With due respect, at least one of the "good sources" you provided was communist and pro-Stalin. (north star compass)
I don't want to get into a big argument because we have had good relations generally, , but I hope my point was made.

And the others were a combination of the Soviet Archives, scholarly articles, etc.

Not my point. I would prefer not to argue about this.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Jeebus.

The Holocaust did happen, there's fucking plenty of evidence that supports it. One of them being the fact that the Nazi were very good at record keeping.

Nanatsu, such a good and well developed reply. So accurate, so much evidence! Wait, so we should ban him for trolling for not believing in confirmed fact that has proof, but you give no such proof? Are you above proof? He gives proof, you don't need to give any, he should just be banned because you don't want to debate him?

I understand that it's better for you to misconstrue my points. Firstly... For example, I didn't go into a debate with him because this thread is not for that. I never said that he or posters like him should be banned because they disagree with my points or hold different opinions to mine. I've said, over and over, that this should be taken in a case by case basis.

Second, he got banned for inflammatory behavior in this thread. Third, as LG already pointed out, I do not decide what's trolling and what isn't. I don't write or enact site policy.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

He didn't get banned because of what he believes.

I'm saying that that is what Nanatsu seems to want.

No, it doesn't.

[Jumalariik]

Nanatsu, such a good and well developed reply. So accurate, so much evidence! Wait, so we should ban him for trolling for not believing in confirmed fact that has proof, but you give no such proof? Are you above proof? He gives proof, you don't need to give any, he should just be banned because you don't want to debate him?

I understand that it's better for you to misconstrue my points. Firstly... For example, I didn't go into a debate with him because this thread is not for that. I never said that he or posters like him should be banned because they disagree with my points or hold different opinions to mine. I've said, over and over, that this should be taken in a case by case basis.

Second, he got banned for inflammatory behavior in this thread. Third, as LG already pointed out, I do not decide what's trolling and what isn't. I don't write or enact site policy.

I didn't realize he was banned.
Well, I would just say though that the way he presented his opinion was obviously not trolling, you did not show any reason for him to change his views.
I still think that if holocaust denial is trolling, holodomor denial should be too, but I think neither should be as long as they are not just aimed at offending people.
Just for clarity, i do think the holocaust happened and despise holocaust denial arguments.
Also, how would denying this:
http://faminegenocide.com/resources/was_it_holodomor.htm
Not be trolling if denying the holocaust is trolling?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I understand that it's better for you to misconstrue my points. Firstly... For example, I didn't go into a debate with him because this thread is not for that. I never said that he or posters like him should be banned because they disagree with my points or hold different opinions to mine. I've said, over and over, that this should be taken in a case by case basis.

Second, he got banned for inflammatory behavior in this thread. Third, as LG already pointed out, I do not decide what's trolling and what isn't. I don't write or enact site policy.

I didn't realize he was banned.

By NERVUN.

Well, I would just say though that the way he presented his opinion was obviously not trolling, you did not show any reason for him to change his views.

As I said, this thread isn't for that but for talking about whether Holocaust denial should be considered trolling.

I still think that if holocaust denial is trolling, holodomor denial should be too, but I think neither should be as long as they are not just aimed at offending people.
Just for clarity, i do think the holocaust happened and despise holocaust denial arguments.

Perhaps it should be. The Ukranian starvation was also quite a tragedy. But I think it wouldn't be considered trolling, just as Holocaust denial isn't, at least not under site rules.

To stress, what I've been saying, from the get-go, is that things should be taken on a case by case. The poster in question, presenting his initial argument on the Holocaust being a myth isn't trolling. Adding slurs like he did later on, however, is trollish and should probably be treated as such by the mod staff, and it was.

[Jumalariik]

I didn't realize he was banned.

By NERVUN.

Well, I would just say though that the way he presented his opinion was obviously not trolling, you did not show any reason for him to change his views.

As I said, this thread isn't for that but for talking about whether Holocaust denial should be considered trolling.

I still think that if holocaust denial is trolling, holodomor denial should be too, but I think neither should be as long as they are not just aimed at offending people.
Just for clarity, i do think the holocaust happened and despise holocaust denial arguments.

Perhaps it should be. The Ukranian starvation was also quite a tragedy. But I think it wouldn't be considered trolling, just as Holocaust denial isn't, at least not under site rules.

To stress, what I've been saying, from the get-go, is that things should be taken on a case by case. The poster in question, presenting his initial argument on the Holocaust being a myth isn't trolling. Adding slurs like he did later on, however, is trollish and should probably be treated as such by the mod staff, and it was.

Ok, I get where you're coming from. The thing is that the Holodomor caused more deaths than the holocaust. Unless my math is wrong, 10 million is a bigger number than 6 million. That said, people who deny that 6 mil died are worse than people who denied that 10 million?
Makes. Perfect. Sense.
I'm not going to get into a threadjack, so good day sir.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

By NERVUN.



As I said, this thread isn't for that but for talking about whether Holocaust denial should be considered trolling.



Perhaps it should be. The Ukranian starvation was also quite a tragedy. But I think it wouldn't be considered trolling, just as Holocaust denial isn't, at least not under site rules.

To stress, what I've been saying, from the get-go, is that things should be taken on a case by case. The poster in question, presenting his initial argument on the Holocaust being a myth isn't trolling. Adding slurs like he did later on, however, is trollish and should probably be treated as such by the mod staff, and it was.

Ok, I get where you're coming from. The thing is that the Holodomor caused more deaths than the holocaust. Unless my math is wrong, 10 million is a bigger number than 6 million. That said, people who deny that 6 mil died are worse than people who denied that 10 million?
Makes. Perfect. Sense.
I'm not going to get into a threadjack, so good day sir.

Are you straddling some sort of dimensional rift and reading posts by two Nanatsus; one saying one thing and the other saying something completely different and then responding to both? Because half of your post seems to be a response to her and the other half seems to have absolutely no connection to anything anybody is arguing except yourself. It's fascinating.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Ok, I get where you're coming from. The thing is that the Holodomor caused more deaths than the holocaust. Unless my math is wrong, 10 million is a bigger number than 6 million. That said, people who deny that 6 mil died are worse than people who denied that 10 million?
Makes. Perfect. Sense.
I'm not going to get into a threadjack, so good day sir.

Are you straddling some sort of dimensional rift and reading posts by two Nanatsus; one saying one thing and the other saying something completely different and then responding to both? Because half of your post seems to be a response to her and the other half seems to have absolutely no connection to anything anybody is arguing except yourself. It's fascinating.

I'm a bit lost myself, tbh. Because I don't recall ever saying that people who have an opinion different than mine should be banned for trolling. I was perusing my posts and I'm not seeing any instance in which I said that, unless this post of mine gave him that impression: viewtopic.php?p=23293797#p23293797, and even at that, I'm not seeing it.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Are you straddling some sort of dimensional rift and reading posts by two Nanatsus; one saying one thing and the other saying something completely different and then responding to both? Because half of your post seems to be a response to her and the other half seems to have absolutely no connection to anything anybody is arguing except yourself. It's fascinating.

I'm a bit lost myself, tbh. Because I don't recall ever saying that people who have an opinion different than mine should be banned for trolling. I was perusing my posts and I'm not seeing any instance in which I said that, unless this post of mine gave him that impression: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... #p23293797, and even at that, I'm not seeing it.

According to the Many Worlds Hypothesis, somewhere out there, you said it. *nod*

[Jumalariik]

Are you straddling some sort of dimensional rift and reading posts by two Nanatsus; one saying one thing and the other saying something completely different and then responding to both? Because half of your post seems to be a response to her and the other half seems to have absolutely no connection to anything anybody is arguing except yourself. It's fascinating.

I'm a bit lost myself, tbh. Because I don't recall ever saying that people who have an opinion different than mine should be banned for trolling. I was perusing my posts and I'm not seeing any instance in which I said that, unless this post of mine gave him that impression: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... #p23293797, and even at that, I'm not seeing it.

Well, you have a particular position on the holocaust: that it happened.
If Joe Bloe has a different opinion, maybe that it didn't happen or that it was over stated, you seem to think that is trolling. Basically, if somebody has a different opinion than you on that particular issue, you think they should be banned/warned for trolling.
Also Luna, when I was reporting you ( ), Sedgeeetdstan (the guy with the zombie giving a piggy back ride as a flag) told me that there are no sacred cows, I guess the holocaust is one?

[Reploid Productions]

Also Luna, when I was reporting you ( ), Sedgeeetdstan (the guy with the zombie giving a piggy back ride as a flag) told me that there are no sacred cows, I guess the holocaust is one?

Since it was clearly missed earlier:

Holocaust denial is, in of itself, not automatically trolling despite being an opinion most of us would find horrible. However, I don't think I've seen a successful attempt to argue that which didn't wind up trolling or flaming in the process. In closing in on 12 years of modding here.

As always, how you say something is just as important as what you say.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I'm a bit lost myself, tbh. Because I don't recall ever saying that people who have an opinion different than mine should be banned for trolling. I was perusing my posts and I'm not seeing any instance in which I said that, unless this post of mine gave him that impression: viewtopic.php?p=23293797#p23293797, and even at that, I'm not seeing it.

Well, you have a particular position on the holocaust: that it happened.
If Joe Bloe has a different opinion, maybe that it didn't happen or that it was over stated, you seem to think that is trolling. Basically, if somebody has a different opinion than you on that particular issue, you think they should be banned/warned for trolling.

What about ''case by case basis'' don't you understand?

Also, me thinking something is trolling doesn't necessarily mean that it will be considered such. Me thinking something is trolling doesn't mean I automatically think someone needs to get warned or banned. I already said that people can make mistakes and stating that the Holocaust didn't happen doesn't necessarily imply that that person has an intention of trolling.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I'm a bit lost myself, tbh. Because I don't recall ever saying that people who have an opinion different than mine should be banned for trolling. I was perusing my posts and I'm not seeing any instance in which I said that, unless this post of mine gave him that impression: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... #p23293797, and even at that, I'm not seeing it.

Well, you have a particular position on the holocaust: that it happened.
If Joe Bloe has a different opinion, maybe that it didn't happen or that it was over stated, you seem to think that is trolling. Basically, if somebody has a different opinion than you on that particular issue, you think they should be banned/warned for trolling.
Also Luna, when I was reporting you ( ), Sedgeeetdstan (the guy with the zombie giving a piggy back ride as a flag) told me that there are no sacred cows, I guess the holocaust is one?

Of the three of us, you are the only one suggesting it might be.

And it was Nervun: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=324921&p=22915375&hilit=%22no+sacred+cows%22#p22915375

[The Archregimancy]

For what it's worth, my personal rule of thumb on this issue has always been this (and looking back at the thread, Reppy said something fairly similar):

While Holocaust denial is not inherently trolling, it's very difficult to make a coherent argument denying the Holocaust without descending into trolling at some point. While I don't see or moderate every case of Holocaust denial, I've yet to encounter a case that I have moderated where moderator action against the Holocaust denier wasn't eventually necessary.

As such, I see no need for a specific rule covering Holocaust denial, any more than we need a specific rule covering denial of the Armenian genocide.

[Jumalariik]

Well, you have a particular position on the holocaust: that it happened.
If Joe Bloe has a different opinion, maybe that it didn't happen or that it was over stated, you seem to think that is trolling. Basically, if somebody has a different opinion than you on that particular issue, you think they should be banned/warned for trolling.

What about ''case by case basis'' don't you understand?

Also, me thinking something is trolling doesn't necessarily mean that it will be considered such. Me thinking something is trolling doesn't mean I automatically think someone needs to get warned or banned. I already said that people can make mistakes and stating that the Holocaust didn't happen doesn't necessarily imply that that person has an intention of trolling.

Wait, what proof do you have that intention is what matters?
I've had cases where I was told that intention doesn't matter, it's what's said.