87 YO grandma arrested for 'holocaust denial'

[Digital Planets]

Grandma has the right to believe the Holocaust didn't happen. However, she's about to lose her right to choose what music she listens to as Sabaton will be into her ears on full blast until she understands the Holocaust actually happened.

[Herador]

Grandma has the right to believe the Holocaust didn't happen. However, she's about to lose her right to choose what music she listens to as Sabaton will be into her ears on full blast until she understands the Holocaust actually happened.

She's old and they're metal, there's an inherent problem with this plan.

[Digital Planets]

Grandma has the right to believe the Holocaust didn't happen. However, she's about to lose her right to choose what music she listens to as Sabaton will be into her ears on full blast until she understands the Holocaust actually happened.

She's old and they're metal, there's an inherent problem with this plan.

Yeah, well where the fuck were you when the Winged Hussars arrived?

[Aelex]

Grandma has the right to believe the Holocaust didn't happen. However, she's about to lose her right to choose what music she listens to as Sabaton will be into her ears on full blast until she understands the Holocaust actually happened.

One of their if not their, in my eyes, best song.

[Herador]

Grandma has the right to believe the Holocaust didn't happen. However, she's about to lose her right to choose what music she listens to as Sabaton will be into her ears on full blast until she understands the Holocaust actually happened.

One of their if not their, in my eyes, best song.

No doubt, but in Screaming Eagles we get to hear him shout "Nuts!", and that's just golden right there.

[Digital Planets]

One of their if not their, in my eyes, best song.

No doubt, but in Screaming Eagles we get to hear him shout "Nuts!", and that's just golden right there.

Hey, just like grandma.

[Jumalariik]

Have to wonder how many decrying Germany's Holocaust denial laws also get up in arms over Turkey denying the Armenian Genocide.

?

First of all, whataboutism is bad.

Second, there's a difference between a government that committed genocide not admitting what it did and acting like it would have been a good thing, and a government banning people speaking out particular opinions. Turkey is bad in this situation because it committed genocide yet doesn't admit it. Germany is bad in this situation because it forces its citizens to agree on this, at least in public. It's wrong to deny the holocaust, or one may argue it to be the case (only makes sense if the person in their heart of hearts knows it happened), but it is just as wrong to legislate morality about the expression of opinions.

The false equivalency you drew basically satirized itself.

[Digital Planets]

Have to wonder how many decrying Germany's Holocaust denial laws also get up in arms over Turkey denying the Armenian Genocide.

?

First of all, whataboutism is bad.

Second, there's a difference between a government that committed genocide not admitting what it did and acting like it would have been a good thing, and a government banning people speaking out particular opinions. Turkey is bad in this situation because it committed genocide yet doesn't admit it. Germany is bad in this situation because it forces its citizens to agree on this, at least in public. It's wrong to deny the holocaust, or one may argue it to be the case (only makes sense if the person in their heart of hearts knows it happened), but it is just as wrong to legislate morality about the expression of opinions.

The false equivalency you drew basically satirized itself.

You know what's also bad? My ex-wife. She's a real bitch.

[Jumalariik]

?

First of all, whataboutism is bad.

Second, there's a difference between a government that committed genocide not admitting what it did and acting like it would have been a good thing, and a government banning people speaking out particular opinions. Turkey is bad in this situation because it committed genocide yet doesn't admit it. Germany is bad in this situation because it forces its citizens to agree on this, at least in public. It's wrong to deny the holocaust, or one may argue it to be the case (only makes sense if the person in their heart of hearts knows it happened), but it is just as wrong to legislate morality about the expression of opinions.

The false equivalency you drew basically satirized itself.

You know what's also bad? My ex-wife. She's a real bitch.

Nice. That's so super on topic isn't it.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Huh, based on the username I thought this post was gonna go in a whole different direction.

Much to learn, young grasshopper.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If a country incarcerated every member of its population that denies a genocide or other mass killing, it would face both an economic and demographic crisis, since at least 10% of its population would be behind bars. Do you realize how many racists there are in the world? These laws are not sustainable.

You exaggerate. The deterrent effect of punishing those who publicly disavow and deny genocides and mass killings is more than sufficient to ensure that the rest of the lot, even if they do not genuinely see the error of their ways and reform, will at least be compelled to hold their tongue. That and of course, extensive educative and public awareness programmes to ensure that people are left in no doubt as to the facts of such historical events.

These laws are perfectly sustainable as long as the politicians are committed enough to see them through.

All they succeed in doing is fueling the flames of extremism. It's at least partially the reason why the far-right and Neo-Nazism are on the rise in Europe.

You exaggerate. The far-right and Neo-Nazis are not on the rise in Europe. They are certainly not gaining traction in countries such as Germany for that matter. And if they are, that is only because the European governments are too frightened of clamping down on these organisations because they don't want to lose votes or because they intend to exploit these organisations for political support and more votes.

You can't incarcerate people for stating their opinions at the same time as claiming liberty as a virtue.

For the record, I've never claimed Liberty as a virtue, just so because I don't want to deal falsely. I make no pretensions that incarcerating such folk and denying them the right to voice their opinions is censorship. The only difference is that we censor people, and rightly so, for deliberately distorting historical facts and using that as a platform to legitimise hateful and extremist ideas, as compared to tyrants and autocrats who suppress their citizens because they wish to retain political power and nothing else. And that makes all the difference.

The two concepts are mutually exclusive, and when combined they only serve to justify the beliefs of the denialists.

The denalist is a person who is already so convinced and steeped in his worldview that no amount of education, coaxing and hectoring will ever change his beliefs. He has been conditioned to view the current Paradigm as being inherently biased against his own actions and beliefs, no matter what the State does. If the State punishes him, he believes himself vindicated by his own conspiracy belief that the State is trying to silence him for challenging the so-called "official consensus". If the State does nothing, he believes himself vindicated all the more so because silence is tantamount to the State conceding that the denialist's claims are correct.

You cannot reason with such people nor hope that they'll play nice by adhering to the rules of the game. That is feel-good nonsense. What you can do is keep them away from society to ensure that they have no space to disseminate their content.

This, he/she gets it.

[Minzerland II]

You exaggerate. The deterrent effect of punishing those who publicly disavow and deny genocides and mass killings is more than sufficient to ensure that the rest of the lot, even if they do not genuinely see the error of their ways and reform, will at least be compelled to hold their tongue. That and of course, extensive educative and public awareness programmes to ensure that people are left in no doubt as to the facts of such historical events.

These laws are perfectly sustainable as long as the politicians are committed enough to see them through.


You exaggerate. The far-right and Neo-Nazis are not on the rise in Europe. They are certainly not gaining traction in countries such as Germany for that matter. And if they are, that is only because the European governments are too frightened of clamping down on these organisations because they don't want to lose votes or because they intend to exploit these organisations for political support and more votes.


For the record, I've never claimed Liberty as a virtue, just so because I don't want to deal falsely. I make no pretensions that incarcerating such folk and denying them the right to voice their opinions is censorship. The only difference is that we censor people, and rightly so, for deliberately distorting historical facts and using that as a platform to legitimise hateful and extremist ideas, as compared to tyrants and autocrats who suppress their citizens because they wish to retain political power and nothing else. And that makes all the difference.


The denalist is a person who is already so convinced and steeped in his worldview that no amount of education, coaxing and hectoring will ever change his beliefs. He has been conditioned to view the current Paradigm as being inherently biased against his own actions and beliefs, no matter what the State does. If the State punishes him, he believes himself vindicated by his own conspiracy belief that the State is trying to silence him for challenging the so-called "official consensus". If the State does nothing, he believes himself vindicated all the more so because silence is tantamount to the State conceding that the denialist's claims are correct.

You cannot reason with such people nor hope that they'll play nice by adhering to the rules of the game. That is feel-good nonsense. What you can do is keep them away from society to ensure that they have no space to disseminate their content.

This, he/she gets it.

What does he/she 'get' exactly?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What does he/she 'get' exactly?

The reason behind the law.

Do I agree with the law? As an American, no. But, I can appreciate why Germany has it. Germany is not America, and it shouldn't pretend to be. They had to deal with the Nazis in person, not us.

Freedom of speech in America is a far more permissive concept than in Germany, and that's okay. That's how they have chosen to deal with Nazis and neo-Nazis. We have chosen to ignore them, they have chosen not to, and it makes perfect sense after the effects on their country.

[Minzerland II]

What does he/she 'get' exactly?

The reason behind the law.

Do I agree with the law? As an American, no. But, I can appreciate why Germany has it. Germany is not America, and it shouldn't pretend to be. They had to deal with the Nazis in person, not us.

Freedom of speech in America is a far more permissive concept than in Germany, and that's okay. That's how they have chosen to deal with Nazis and neo-Nazis.

Fair enough.

[Jamzmania]

What does he/she 'get' exactly?

The reason behind the law.

Do I agree with the law? As an American, no. But, I can appreciate why Germany has it. Germany is not America, and it shouldn't pretend to be. They had to deal with the Nazis in person, not us.

Freedom of speech in America is a far more permissive concept than in Germany, and that's okay. That's how they have chosen to deal with Nazis and neo-Nazis. We have chosen to ignore them, they have chosen not to, and it makes perfect sense after the effects on their country.

Would you think it was "okay" if Germany began to jail Muslims because their concept of freedom of religion was different from the American concept?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The reason behind the law.

Do I agree with the law? As an American, no. But, I can appreciate why Germany has it. Germany is not America, and it shouldn't pretend to be. They had to deal with the Nazis in person, not us.

Freedom of speech in America is a far more permissive concept than in Germany, and that's okay. That's how they have chosen to deal with Nazis and neo-Nazis. We have chosen to ignore them, they have chosen not to, and it makes perfect sense after the effects on their country.

Would you think it was "okay" if Germany began to jail Muslims because their concept of freedom of religion was different from the American concept?

If Muslims were to install a theocracy in Germany, conquer Europe, reuse Nazi concentration camps in order to launch a Second Holocaust, and we beat them into submission? Yes. I'd disagree with it, but I'd understand why they establish said law.

The inherent problem with your analogy though is that you seem to think that I believe freedom is an absolute, I don't. Germany's law is not an absolute moratorium for shits and giggles. It's because the Nazis subverted the state, and in doing so they brought upon us WWII and the Holocaust. Germany, in order to avoid another bunch of people like the Nazis from ever gaining traction again, made things like Holocaust denial and other Nazi/neo-Nazi movements verboten.

If Muslims were to subvert the state en masse, it is in the best interests of the German state to use force against them. Is it authoritarian? Yes, but it's not wrong if it means the German state continues to function.

[Crurnlark]

While the law itself seems unjust, it makes sense to uphold it. Denying the Holocaust is a dangerous idea that they don't want to spread.

[Sanctissima]

Would you think it was "okay" if Germany began to jail Muslims because their concept of freedom of religion was different from the American concept?

If Muslims were to install a theocracy in Germany, conquer Europe, reuse Nazi concentration camps in order to launch a Second Holocaust, and we beat them into submission? Yes. I'd disagree with it, but I'd understand why they establish said law.

The inherent problem with your analogy though is that you seem to think that I believe freedom is an absolute, I don't. Germany's law is not an absolute moratorium for shits and giggles. It's because the Nazis subverted the state, and in doing so they brought upon us WWII and the Holocaust. Germany, in order to avoid another bunch of people like the Nazis from ever gaining traction again, made things like Holocaust denial and other Nazi/neo-Nazi movements verboten.

If Muslims were to subvert the state en masse, it is in the best interests of the German state to use force against them. Is it authoritarian? Yes, but it's not wrong if it means the German state continues to function.

If the intent is to stop Neo-Nazi movements from developing, then why isn't it working? With very few exceptions, in every European country with Holocaust denial laws the far-right and neo-Nazi movements are on the rise. So either the laws are at best ineffective, or at worst counterproductive to their intended result.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If Muslims were to install a theocracy in Germany, conquer Europe, reuse Nazi concentration camps in order to launch a Second Holocaust, and we beat them into submission? Yes. I'd disagree with it, but I'd understand why they establish said law.

The inherent problem with your analogy though is that you seem to think that I believe freedom is an absolute, I don't. Germany's law is not an absolute moratorium for shits and giggles. It's because the Nazis subverted the state, and in doing so they brought upon us WWII and the Holocaust. Germany, in order to avoid another bunch of people like the Nazis from ever gaining traction again, made things like Holocaust denial and other Nazi/neo-Nazi movements verboten.

If Muslims were to subvert the state en masse, it is in the best interests of the German state to use force against them. Is it authoritarian? Yes, but it's not wrong if it means the German state continues to function.

If the intent is to stop Neo-Nazi movements from developing, then why isn't it working? With very few exceptions, in every European country with Holocaust denial laws the far-right and neo-Nazi movements are on the rise. So either the laws are at best ineffective, or at worst counterproductive to their intended result.

Because the intent is not to stop far-right movements from developing and gaining traction. While holocaust denial and other anti-Nazi laws were developed, their intent is not to punish actual far-right politicians, it's to prevent something like what the Nazis had from developing.

The priority, in other words, is not on Italian Fascists, to put an example. The priority is on "blocking anything that resembles Nazi Germany".

[Sanctissima]

If the intent is to stop Neo-Nazi movements from developing, then why isn't it working? With very few exceptions, in every European country with Holocaust denial laws the far-right and neo-Nazi movements are on the rise. So either the laws are at best ineffective, or at worst counterproductive to their intended result.

Because the intent is not to stop far-right movements from developing and gaining traction. While holocaust denial and other anti-Nazi laws were developed, their intent is not to punish actual far-right politicians, it's to prevent something like what the Nazis had from developing.

Yet that is what the far-right movements actually want, as a rule of thumb. Sure, they try to mask it, but you're kidding yourself if you think groups like PEGIDA wouldn't institute a Fourth Reich if given the chance. The problem is that these laws only work when the economy is good and people like their current government. When the economy is shit and everyone hates the government, the laws become counterproductive.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

If the intent is to stop Neo-Nazi movements from developing, then why isn't it working?

It certainly is.

With very few exceptions, in every European country with Holocaust denial laws the far-right and neo-Nazi movements are on the rise.

As I mentioned before, the rise of the far-right, or neo-Nazis for that matter, is exaggerated. They have come nowhere close to seizing power in France, Germany, Belgium, Greece, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Israel, Spain, Romania and Portugal nor is their political "resurgence" permanent.

Even in Russia, the primary vehicle of anti-semitism and Holocaust denial, the Liberal Democratic Party, is a farcical joke that has never come close to claiming the presidency.

In fact, the few exceptions where the far-right were successful, such as in Italy, remain exceptions because Holocaust denial laws have never been strongly enforced. Italy only signed such laws into place in 2007, after the high-water mark of Italian far-right political gains. As for Hungary, that depends on whether Jobbik and Viktor Orban truly officially espouse Holocaust denial for that matter. And even if they do, Hungary is one exception.

[RichardJEW1]

Holocaust Deniers deserve to be jailed, their denial just as stupid as saying there is no Christian genocide being committed by the hands of ISIS, this is not an issue of freedom of speech, it is blatant anti-semitism and disrespect to the Jews who lost their lives in the Holocaust, freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to spit on those Jews who did not deserve the fate they received.

[San Lumen]

I find this to be completely stupid. If someone wants to be ignorant and deny history that is their right. Free speech means allowing speech you find offensive or objectionable. It doesn't mean you censor unpopular opinions

[Jamzmania]

Would you think it was "okay" if Germany began to jail Muslims because their concept of freedom of religion was different from the American concept?

If Muslims were to install a theocracy in Germany, conquer Europe, reuse Nazi concentration camps in order to launch a Second Holocaust, and we beat them into submission? Yes. I'd disagree with it, but I'd understand why they establish said law.

The inherent problem with your analogy though is that you seem to think that I believe freedom is an absolute, I don't. Germany's law is not an absolute moratorium for shits and giggles. It's because the Nazis subverted the state, and in doing so they brought upon us WWII and the Holocaust. Germany, in order to avoid another bunch of people like the Nazis from ever gaining traction again, made things like Holocaust denial and other Nazi/neo-Nazi movements verboten.

If Muslims were to subvert the state en masse, it is in the best interests of the German state to use force against them. Is it authoritarian? Yes, but it's not wrong if it means the German state continues to function.

I suppose, then, just about any action is acceptable to you as long as the perpetrator can come up with a good enough excuse?

For example, why should we wait until the Muslims cause a world war before we act against them? From their religion, we know their intention is world domination. We ought to stop this cancer before it has time to spread. Build more prisons, hire more guards, enact more laws giving the State the authority it needs to stop the rise of Islamism...

[Jamzmania]

Holocaust Deniers deserve to be jailed, their denial just as stupid as saying there is no Christian genocide being committed by the hands of ISIS, this is not an issue of freedom of speech, it is blatant anti-semitism and disrespect to the Jews who lost their lives in the Holocaust, freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to spit on those Jews who did not deserve the fate they received.

I find your denialism of the truth of Holocaust denial to be, frankly, offensive and disrespectful; probably racist, too. It's just a stupid as saying the moon landing was real. Pshaw! You deserve to be jailed. Stand by while the police kick in your door to haul you off to the place you so richly deserve to be.

You see how much different, and yet almost exactly the same, it could be if the majority opinion were different?