17 million vs 1 million

[Caracasus]

We can infer from the fact you chose an SJW and that you've then gone on to use this imaginary boogeyman of the far right as a category to associate those who disagree with you, that your intention was to deride those who felt that the other option (saving the victims of the holocaust) as emotionally driven and broadly wrong.

You've pretty much done points 1-3 in the first few pages:

In your own words:









And for the holocaust (probably/possibly? unintentional apologia:

I don't see how any of the above is "Holocaust apologia."

its saying, in a completely clinical fashion:

"
1. Hey its not COMPLETELY clear if the Holocaust is the WORST THING that humans have ever done. Some things, depending on who you ask and what you look at, could be worse (perhaps a lot of people or someone in some other event, had it worse than someone in a gas chamber).

2. I'm not here to get down into the nitty gritty of the numbers in the Holocaust, that is not what the thread is about"

Again...

That is not what Holocaust apologia looks like. What it looks like is:

"The Holocaust wasn't so terrible. It helped control the population in Europe. The _____s had it coming and a lot of criminals were eliminated."

^

THAT IS WHAT APOLOGIA LOOKS LIKE

What I have said it not apologia. It is not apologia to say, "MAYBE it was not the ABSOLUTE WORSE"

Apologia is where you say, "Oh you know what? It was totally justified."

...

And for the record let me show you what Holocaust Denial looks like:

The Holocaust never happened. It was a Zionist conspiracy.

^

This.

Not what I've been saying.

Like many things, it's context dependent. When you open with associating the counterpoint to your choice with SJW's - who you then go on to deride in vivid detail and then start throwing suggestions about the severity of the holocaust etc. (especially when other genocides really weren't the topic) into the mix and then double down on that then yes, it basically is holocaust apologia to pretty much anyone reading it.

I kinda hope I'm wrong to be honest, I really do. It might be a case of you simply not articulating your points very well.

[Infected Mushroom]

The position that although the Holocaust has the highest kill count in a genocide, other events ("worse than the Holocaust" by some metrics) could be a greater evil than it (for example, the Great Leap Forward, the IJA's crimes in the Pacific, or the Stalinist purges etc) depending on WHAT metric you used and how you defined things...

For instance, maybe people very reasonably do not think the racial genocidal nature of the Holocaust makes it worse than some of the communist purges because the communist purges killed a much greater number is at least a tenable position. Similarly, one could list a number of absolutely terrifying things that other groups have pulled in mass murder of civilians campaigns that make you question whether the Holocaust truly entailed the largest number of absolutely inhumane torture.

we've been taught that the Holocaust is Number One in the most evil things to have happened, I'm saying "not necessarily..." It depends on what you look at and whether or not you think numbers killed in a genocide is what is the most important.

is not in any capacity, what you've represented above

The problem is no one is downplaying the tragedy of the Holodomor, of the Great Leap Forward, or of Japanese war crimes. You however try to downplay the holocaust and that's what makes people react poorly. This whole thing is not people overreacting to nothing, it's you poorly choosing your words then doubling down when other people call you out on it.

I have not been downplaying it in any substantial sense besides saying:

"Hey you know... the Holocaust isn't CLEARLY and OBJECtiVELY the very worst thing that humans have done. Its very hard to quantify human suffering and while it is true that the Holocaust was the largest GENOCIDE... this doesn't 100% ensure its indisputed status as the very very worst of all human acts. There are other contenders like the Stalinist Purges, the IJA's Pacific War crimes etc"

Is this downplaying?

Its objective fact that there have been other campaigns of mass murder that have killed a greater number of people and that in other instances, people have been much quicker to jump to very high and extreme levels of torture murder right off the bat (for instance, the absolutely mindless bloodlust during the Nanking Massacre)

And its entirely reasonable that some people don't think racial genocides, by its virtue of being racial and genocidal, AUTOMATICALLY occupies a higher position than other events in murderers have killed greater numbers of people...

[Heloin]

I hate that I have to bring up a list, which shouldn't change the fact that any genocide is awful. But yes, the Holocaust is the worst.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_g ... death_toll

Which is why I deliberately did not put the list out there I hate it too

I wanted to relax this morning. I have a poptart the telly across the room has Doctor Who. And here I am talking about the worst of humanity.

[The New California Republic]

The Fuck?

because if you go back and trawl this entire thread, that's all I've been saying

I said the Holocaust was not indisputably at the very top of the worst crimes against humanity and that there is some confusion regarding exactly how many people of which type were killed (for Jews it could be less or more then 6 million, I made no claims denying other groups were killed)

that and one or two statements that death in a concentration camp is in some cases favourable to deaths in other instances

that is literally all I've said

(and an argument that I refuse to betray my family and friends to bring back people who are already dead)

and people are going "HOLOCAUST APOLOGIST!"

Seems to me to be a gross over-reaction; this just confirms to me that this topic (whatever it is about it) seems to encourage strawmannirg, random attacks, and pointless name-calling and many people flat out are unable to make subtle distinctions between what is being said/not said

its the modern equivalent of the "Oh you believe in economic regulation? you're a communist"

You are a Holocaust apologist though, the evidence is plain for all to see. You started off by disputing the precise numbers of Jews that were killed in the Holocaust, and then you started claiming that death by gas chamber wasn't really that bad. That is classic Holocaust apologist behavior.

[Ifreann]

Let us all be clear that you have not simply taken the position that the Holocaust was not necessarily the worst crime ever, you have been arguing that you don't care about the Holocaust because it happened in the past, and you have been arguing that it would be wrong to kill Hitler since he did not wrong you personally, you have ignorantly repeated Holocaust denier talking points, and you have set this thread up so that you can say that anyone who does want to prevent the Holocaust is some kind of traitor with no loyalty. You are attacking the people who want the Holocaust not to have happened.

"HOLOCAUST DENIER TALKING POINTS"

OH MY GOD

You're doing it again

OH MY GOD

Your reading really is terrible. I did not say that you are bad because you said the thing that the bad people say. I am pointing out that you are repeating the talking points of people WHO ARE WRONG, people whose beliefs ARE INCORRECT, because you, like them, want to minimise the severity of the Holocaust.

---

I have not gone out of my way to "diminish" the Holocaust.

The title of your thread still reads "6 million vs 1 million" when you have been told repeatedly that 17 million people died in the Holocaust.

[Infected Mushroom]

I don't see how any of the above is "Holocaust apologia."

its saying, in a completely clinical fashion:

"
1. Hey its not COMPLETELY clear if the Holocaust is the WORST THING that humans have ever done. Some things, depending on who you ask and what you look at, could be worse (perhaps a lot of people or someone in some other event, had it worse than someone in a gas chamber).

2. I'm not here to get down into the nitty gritty of the numbers in the Holocaust, that is not what the thread is about"

Again...

That is not what Holocaust apologia looks like. What it looks like is:



^

THAT IS WHAT APOLOGIA LOOKS LIKE

What I have said it not apologia. It is not apologia to say, "MAYBE it was not the ABSOLUTE WORSE"

Apologia is where you say, "Oh you know what? It was totally justified."

...

And for the record let me show you what Holocaust Denial looks like:



^

This.

Not what I've been saying.

Like many things, it's context dependent. When you open with associating the counterpoint to your choice with SJW's - who you then go on to deride in vivid detail and then start throwing suggestions about the severity of the holocaust etc. (especially when other genocides really weren't the topic) into the mix and then double down on that then yes, it basically is holocaust apologia to pretty much anyone reading it.

I kinda hope I'm wrong to be honest, I really do. It might be a case of you simply not articulating your points very well.

But how is it apologia when I've just shown you what ACTUAL apologia looks like?

It can't be "apologia" unless I actually SIDE with the perpetrators of the Holocaust and say in some way that is was "justified." I did no such thing.

If "apologia" can be used so loosely then of what use is the term?

I've in no place said, "Oh the Holocaust? It was actually a good thing or more justified than you think." Like where?

...

Also, the SJW is in the OP is not a representation of everyone who opposes me... its the representation of a type of confrontational attitude that SOME might display IF you chose NOT to press the button (because in real life, these people exist, they will make it difficult for you). I'm inviting an INTELLECTUAL response from the participants who chose not to press on HOW they would defend their actions.

its not directed at any segment of posters, its a moving piece of the hypothetical

[Alvecia]

The problem is no one is downplaying the tragedy of the Holodomor, of the Great Leap Forward, or of Japanese war crimes. You however try to downplay the holocaust and that's what makes people react poorly. This whole thing is not people overreacting to nothing, it's you poorly choosing your words then doubling down when other people call you out on it.

I have not been downplaying it in any substantial sense besides saying:

"Hey you know... the Holocaust isn't CLEARLY and OBJECtiVELY the very worst thing that humans have done. Its very hard to quantify human suffering and while it is true that the Holocaust was the largest GENOCIDE... this doesn't 100% ensure its indisputed status as the very very worst of all human acts. There are other contenders like the Stalinist Purges, the IJA's Pacific War crimes etc"

Is this downplaying?

Its objective fact that there have been other campaigns of mass murder that have killed a greater number of people and that in other instances, people have been much quicker to jump to very high and extreme levels of torture murder right off the bat (for instance, the absolutely mindless bloodlust during the Nanking Massacre)

And its entirely reasonable that some people don't think racial genocides, by its virtue of being racial and genocidal, AUTOMATICALLY occupies a higher position than other events in murderers have killed greater numbers of people...

You have been rather insistent that the death toll remain at 6 million, despite many people pointing out how the figure is actually quite a bit larger than that.

[Caracasus]

Like many things, it's context dependent. When you open with associating the counterpoint to your choice with SJW's - who you then go on to deride in vivid detail and then start throwing suggestions about the severity of the holocaust etc. (especially when other genocides really weren't the topic) into the mix and then double down on that then yes, it basically is holocaust apologia to pretty much anyone reading it.

I kinda hope I'm wrong to be honest, I really do. It might be a case of you simply not articulating your points very well.

But how is it apologia when I've just shown you what ACTUAL apologia looks like?

It can't be "apologia" unless I actually SIDE with the perpetrators of the Holocaust and say in some way that is was "justified." I did no such thing.

If "apologia" can be used so loosely then of what use is the term?

I've in no place said, "Oh the Holocaust? It was actually a good thing or more justified than you think." Like where?

...

Also, the SJW is in the OP is not a representation of everyone who opposes me... its the representation of a type of confrontational attitude that SOME might display IF you chose NOT to press the button (because in real life, these people exist, they will make it difficult for you). I'm inviting an INTELLECTUAL response from the participants who chose not to press on HOW they would defend their actions.

its not directed at any segment of posters, its a moving piece of the hypothetical

You're wrong. Actual apologia often looks like this. There are very, very few fascists who actually come out and say (in public at least) that the holocaust never happened, or that it was justified. Instead they try to downplay it, usually by comparing it to other atrocities and set up their opponents as hysterical.

I.e. everything you've done here.

[Heloin]

The problem is no one is downplaying the tragedy of the Holodomor, of the Great Leap Forward, or of Japanese war crimes. You however try to downplay the holocaust and that's what makes people react poorly. This whole thing is not people overreacting to nothing, it's you poorly choosing your words then doubling down when other people call you out on it.

I have not been downplaying it in any substantial sense besides saying:

"Hey you know... the Holocaust isn't CLEARLY and OBJECtiVELY the very worst thing that humans have done. Its very hard to quantify human suffering and while it is true that the Holocaust was the largest GENOCIDE... this doesn't 100% ensure its indisputed status as the very very worst of all human acts. There are other contenders like the Stalinist Purges, the IJA's Pacific War crimes etc"

Is this downplaying?

Its objective fact that there have been other campaigns of mass murder that have killed a greater number of people and that in other instances, people have been much quicker to jump to very high and extreme levels of torture murder right off the bat (for instance, the absolutely mindless bloodlust during the Nanking Massacre)

And its entirely reasonable that some people don't think racial genocides, by its virtue of being racial and genocidal, AUTOMATICALLY occupies a higher position than other events in murderers have killed greater numbers of people...

Claiming one genocide is not the worst and that includes any is downplaying the horror of any genocide. Every genocide is the worst. Ranking them as worst is least worst is not a good idea and only makes people rightly upset.

[Infected Mushroom]

because if you go back and trawl this entire thread, that's all I've been saying

I said the Holocaust was not indisputably at the very top of the worst crimes against humanity and that there is some confusion regarding exactly how many people of which type were killed (for Jews it could be less or more then 6 million, I made no claims denying other groups were killed)

that and one or two statements that death in a concentration camp is in some cases favourable to deaths in other instances

that is literally all I've said

(and an argument that I refuse to betray my family and friends to bring back people who are already dead)

and people are going "HOLOCAUST APOLOGIST!"

Seems to me to be a gross over-reaction; this just confirms to me that this topic (whatever it is about it) seems to encourage strawmannirg, random attacks, and pointless name-calling and many people flat out are unable to make subtle distinctions between what is being said/not said

its the modern equivalent of the "Oh you believe in economic regulation? you're a communist"

You are a Holocaust apologist though, the evidence is plain for all to see. You started off by disputing the precise numbers of Jews that were killed in the Holocaust, and then you started claiming that death by gas chamber wasn't really that bad. That is classic Holocaust apologist behavior.

The PRECISE number of Jews killed in the Holocaust IS an academic debate.

There is no consensus on the EXACT number (many historians say 6 million, some say less, some say more)

I've stated that the controversy exists, I have NOT provided my own number (the one in the hypothetical is only used from briefly reading wikipedia)

I don't know how you can infer apologia from this

...

the gas chamber argument is RESTRICTED to saying: "Someone in some other campaign of mass murder probably had it worse than execution in a gas chamber" it does NOT imply:

1. Gas Chambers are painless
2. Gas Chambers are the only method of execution used in the Holocaust
3, This is proof that the Holocaust is No Big Deal

[The New California Republic]

But how is it apologia when I've just shown you what ACTUAL apologia looks like?

It can't be "apologia" unless I actually SIDE with the perpetrators of the Holocaust and say in some way that is was "justified." I did no such thing.

If "apologia" can be used so loosely then of what use is the term?

I've in no place said, "Oh the Holocaust? It was actually a good thing or more justified than you think." Like where?

...

Also, the SJW is in the OP is not a representation of everyone who opposes me... its the representation of a type of confrontational attitude that SOME might display IF you chose NOT to press the button (because in real life, these people exist, they will make it difficult for you). I'm inviting an INTELLECTUAL response from the participants who chose not to press on HOW they would defend their actions.

its not directed at any segment of posters, its a moving piece of the hypothetical

You're wrong. Actual apologia often looks like this. There are very, very few fascists who actually come out and say (in public at least) that the holocaust never happened, or that it was justified. Instead they try to downplay it, usually by comparing it to other atrocities and set up their opponents as hysterical.

I.e. everything you've done here.

Exactly. Holocaust apologism is subtle, you need to know what to look for to identify it, and people on this thread have correctly identified IM's posts here as Holocaust apologism.

[Alvecia]

You are a Holocaust apologist though, the evidence is plain for all to see. You started off by disputing the precise numbers of Jews that were killed in the Holocaust, and then you started claiming that death by gas chamber wasn't really that bad. That is classic Holocaust apologist behavior.

The PRECISE number of Jews killed in the Holocaust IS an academic debate.

There is no consensus on the EXACT number (many historians say 6 million, some say less, some say more)

I've stated that the controversy exists, I have NOT provided my own number (the one in the hypothetical is only used from briefly reading wikipedia)

I don't know how you can infer apologia from this

...

the gas chamber argument is RESTRICTED to saying: "Someone in some other campaign of mass murder probably had it worse than execution in a gas chamber" it does NOT imply:

1. Gas Chambers are painless
2. Gas Chambers are the only method of execution used in the Holocaust
3, This is proof that the Holocaust is No Big Deal

It isn’t just Jews that died though. Do you not see how this could easily be interpreted as you downplaying the severity of the Holocaust by deliberately omitting the deaths of other groups of people that were killed?

[Infected Mushroom]

I have not been downplaying it in any substantial sense besides saying:

"Hey you know... the Holocaust isn't CLEARLY and OBJECtiVELY the very worst thing that humans have done. Its very hard to quantify human suffering and while it is true that the Holocaust was the largest GENOCIDE... this doesn't 100% ensure its indisputed status as the very very worst of all human acts. There are other contenders like the Stalinist Purges, the IJA's Pacific War crimes etc"

Is this downplaying?

Its objective fact that there have been other campaigns of mass murder that have killed a greater number of people and that in other instances, people have been much quicker to jump to very high and extreme levels of torture murder right off the bat (for instance, the absolutely mindless bloodlust during the Nanking Massacre)

And its entirely reasonable that some people don't think racial genocides, by its virtue of being racial and genocidal, AUTOMATICALLY occupies a higher position than other events in murderers have killed greater numbers of people...

Claiming one genocide is not the worst and that includes any is downplaying the horror of any genocide. Every genocide is the worst. Ranking them as worst is least worst is not a good idea and only makes people rightly upset.

I don't agree with that.

Something can be among the worst, but not CLEARLY and OBJECTIVELY the very worst

[Infected Mushroom]

The PRECISE number of Jews killed in the Holocaust IS an academic debate.

There is no consensus on the EXACT number (many historians say 6 million, some say less, some say more)

I've stated that the controversy exists, I have NOT provided my own number (the one in the hypothetical is only used from briefly reading wikipedia)

I don't know how you can infer apologia from this

...

the gas chamber argument is RESTRICTED to saying: "Someone in some other campaign of mass murder probably had it worse than execution in a gas chamber" it does NOT imply:

1. Gas Chambers are painless
2. Gas Chambers are the only method of execution used in the Holocaust
3, This is proof that the Holocaust is No Big Deal

It isn’t just Jews that died though. Do you not see how this could easily be interpreted as you downplaying the severity of the Holocaust by deliberately omitting the deaths of other groups of people that were killed?

Deliberately omitting?

its more that I didn't want to spend more time writing this OP then I had to; I've always felt this topic was explosive as hell and prone to random attacks and labelling

no I was just being sloppy

[Infected Mushroom]

But how is it apologia when I've just shown you what ACTUAL apologia looks like?

It can't be "apologia" unless I actually SIDE with the perpetrators of the Holocaust and say in some way that is was "justified." I did no such thing.

If "apologia" can be used so loosely then of what use is the term?

I've in no place said, "Oh the Holocaust? It was actually a good thing or more justified than you think." Like where?

...

Also, the SJW is in the OP is not a representation of everyone who opposes me... its the representation of a type of confrontational attitude that SOME might display IF you chose NOT to press the button (because in real life, these people exist, they will make it difficult for you). I'm inviting an INTELLECTUAL response from the participants who chose not to press on HOW they would defend their actions.

its not directed at any segment of posters, its a moving piece of the hypothetical

You're wrong. Actual apologia often looks like this. There are very, very few fascists who actually come out and say (in public at least) that the holocaust never happened, or that it was justified. Instead they try to downplay it, usually by comparing it to other atrocities and set up their opponents as hysterical.

I.e. everything you've done here.

Just so we're on the same page here, Summarize My Main Points for me (what I have said literally, not what you think I'm "implying")

I want to see if we're on the same page or not

I'm not sure you can concisely summarise it even though I've been trying to summarise it for you

After you're done, hopefully you can see why I am not in the group you think I belong to

[The Free Joy State]

The PRECISE number of Jews killed in the Holocaust IS an academic debate.

There is no academic debate!

Every legitimate academic has accepted the number of six million Jewish** victims plus approximately 12 million socialists, democrats, communists, gay men, Soviet POWs, Roma and Sinti, disabled persons, mentally ill persons, Polish prisoners, and others deemed "subhuman"

**As accurately as possible, considering the mass scale of murders.

[Alvecia]

It isn’t just Jews that died though. Do you not see how this could easily be interpreted as you downplaying the severity of the Holocaust by deliberately omitting the deaths of other groups of people that were killed?

Deliberately omitting?

its more that I didn't want to spend more time writing this OP then I had to; I've always felt this topic was explosive as hell and prone to random attacks and labelling

no I was just being sloppy

You, the serial OP editor, didn’t want to edit the OP? That sounds rather disingenuous given your history.
Particularly given how little effort it would actually be to look up the info and edit the number. You’ve spent far more effort defending your use of the 6 million figure than it would have cost to be accurate in the first place.

[Infected Mushroom]

You're wrong. Actual apologia often looks like this. There are very, very few fascists who actually come out and say (in public at least) that the holocaust never happened, or that it was justified. Instead they try to downplay it, usually by comparing it to other atrocities and set up their opponents as hysterical.

I.e. everything you've done here.

Exactly. Holocaust apologism is subtle, you need to know what to look for to identify it, and people on this thread have correctly identified IM's posts here as Holocaust apologism.

...

hmmmm...

how can I get through to you?

Are you saying you DON'T recognise the FACT that it IS an existing academic debate EXACTLY how many Jews were killed in the camps?

How do you get to: "They are a Holocaust apologist" for merely POINTING OUT that this uncertainty/academic debate EXISTS????

Isn't this drawing a handgun before you've heard the whole position?

[The New California Republic]

You are a Holocaust apologist though, the evidence is plain for all to see. You started off by disputing the precise numbers of Jews that were killed in the Holocaust, and then you started claiming that death by gas chamber wasn't really that bad. That is classic Holocaust apologist behavior.

The PRECISE number of Jews killed in the Holocaust IS an academic debate.

There is no consensus on the EXACT number (many historians say 6 million, some say less, some say more)

I've stated that the controversy exists, I have NOT provided my own number (the one in the hypothetical is only used from briefly reading wikipedia)

I don't know how you can infer apologia from this

Sure, but the context in which you said it certainly isn't "academic debate". You were disputing the numbers within a wider context of trying to reduce how bad the Holocaust was.

---

the gas chamber argument is RESTRICTED to saying: "Someone in some other campaign of mass murder probably had it worse than execution in a gas chamber" it does NOT imply:

1. Gas Chambers are painless
2. Gas Chambers are the only method of execution used in the Holocaust
3, This is proof that the Holocaust is No Big Deal

Fucking hell IM, do you want me to show you your own words?

I can tell you that there are far worse ways to die than being sent to a gas chamber; the only clear category where the Holocaust trumps absolutely everything else is in its excessively high public profile and extremely high interest by Western film-makers and writers

You were making out as if the terribleness of the gas chambers was something invented by the media. Again, more classic Holocaust apologist behavior...

[The New California Republic]

Exactly. Holocaust apologism is subtle, you need to know what to look for to identify it, and people on this thread have correctly identified IM's posts here as Holocaust apologism.

...

hmmmm...

how can I get through to you?

Are you saying you DON'T recognise the FACT that it IS an existing academic debate EXACTLY how many Jews were killed in the camps?

How do you get to: "They are a Holocaust apologist" for merely POINTING OUT that this uncertainty/academic debate EXISTS????

Isn't this drawing a handgun before you've heard the whole position?

Nope, it's arriving at a correct conclusion after seeing you repeatedly apologise for the Holocaust.

[Infected Mushroom]

Deliberately omitting?

its more that I didn't want to spend more time writing this OP then I had to; I've always felt this topic was explosive as hell and prone to random attacks and labelling

no I was just being sloppy

You, the serial OP editor, didn’t want to edit the OP? That sounds rather disingenuous given your history.
Particularly given how little effort it would actually be to look up the info and edit the number. You’ve spent far more effort defending your use of the 6 million figure than it would have cost to be accurate in the first place.

I have not "defended" the 6 million figure.

All I've said was that:

1. I pulled the 6 million from wikipedia
2. There is an existing academic debate about whether MORE than 6 million Jews were killed or LESS than 6 million Jews were killed

I have not provided a defense of any existing number or suggested that we should lean towards the low count. I've said nothing about what the number SHOULD be just that I've used one for convenience for the hypothetical in the OP and I recognise the fact that an academic debate exists about WHAT the real number is (and yes, some people have argued it should be less than 6 million). I made no comment on who is correct

[Infected Mushroom]

...

hmmmm...

how can I get through to you?

Are you saying you DON'T recognise the FACT that it IS an existing academic debate EXACTLY how many Jews were killed in the camps?

How do you get to: "They are a Holocaust apologist" for merely POINTING OUT that this uncertainty/academic debate EXISTS????

Isn't this drawing a handgun before you've heard the whole position?

Nope, it's arriving at a correct conclusion after seeing you repeatedly apologise for the Holocaust.

Where have I "apologised" for the Holocaust?

I have said, "the Holocaust is not indisputably THE VERY WORST" at no point did I say, "the Holocaust was justified/a good thing"

[Infected Mushroom]

The PRECISE number of Jews killed in the Holocaust IS an academic debate.

There is no consensus on the EXACT number (many historians say 6 million, some say less, some say more)

I've stated that the controversy exists, I have NOT provided my own number (the one in the hypothetical is only used from briefly reading wikipedia)

I don't know how you can infer apologia from this

Sure, but the context in which you said it certainly isn't "academic debate". You were disputing the numbers within a wider context of trying to reduce how bad the Holocaust was.

---

the gas chamber argument is RESTRICTED to saying: "Someone in some other campaign of mass murder probably had it worse than execution in a gas chamber" it does NOT imply:

1. Gas Chambers are painless
2. Gas Chambers are the only method of execution used in the Holocaust
3, This is proof that the Holocaust is No Big Deal

Fucking hell IM, do you want me to show you your own words?

I can tell you that there are far worse ways to die than being sent to a gas chamber; the only clear category where the Holocaust trumps absolutely everything else is in its excessively high public profile and extremely high interest by Western film-makers and writers

You were making out as if the terribleness of the gas chambers was something invented by the media. Again, more classic Holocaust apologist behavior...

You're imagining things

I've never said that "the gas chambers was something invented by the media"

I remember very clear what I did say about the gas chambers.

It does not entail the above.

[Caracasus]

You're wrong. Actual apologia often looks like this. There are very, very few fascists who actually come out and say (in public at least) that the holocaust never happened, or that it was justified. Instead they try to downplay it, usually by comparing it to other atrocities and set up their opponents as hysterical.

I.e. everything you've done here.

Just so we're on the same page here, Summarize My Main Points for me (what I have said literally, not what you think I'm "implying")

I want to see if we're on the same page or not

I'm not sure you can concisely summarise it even though I've been trying to summarise it for you

After you're done, hopefully you can see why I am not in the group you think I belong to

Sure. For whatever reason you've been intentionally or unintentionally parroting holocaust apologia talking points throughout this whole thread, starting with your opening statement where you inferred those against you were irrational SJW's.

Now, given that damn near everyone else here seems to broadly follow this interpretation, could it possibly be that your ability to get across your ideas is at fault here, and not everyone else's comprehension abilities?

[Infected Mushroom]

The PRECISE number of Jews killed in the Holocaust IS an academic debate.

There is no academic debate!

Every legitimate academic has accepted the number of six million Jewish victims plus approximately 12 million socialists, democrats, communists, gay men, Soviet POWs, Roma and Sinti, disabled persons, mentally ill persons, Polish prisoners, and others deemed "subhuman"

From wikipedia:

According to the Yad Vashem Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority in Jerusalem, "[a]ll the serious research" confirms that between five and six million Jews died.[387] Early postwar calculations were 4.2 to 4.5 million from Gerald Reitlinger;[388] 5.1 million from Raul Hilberg; and 5.95 million from Jacob Lestschinsky.[389] In 1986 Lucy S. Dawidowicz used the pre-war census figures to estimate 5.934 million.[390] Yehuda Bauer and Robert Rozett in the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (1990) estimate 5.59–5.86 million.[391] A 1996 study led by Wolfgang Benz suggested 5.29 to 6.2 million, based on comparing pre- and post-war census records and surviving German documentation on deportations and killings.[387] Martin Gilbert arrived at a minimum of 5.75 million.[392] The figures include over one million children.[393]

So even among mainstream historians, some have raised numbers slightly less or more than 6 million

ergo, what I've been saying

there is a debate

and this is only based on one source; you can find internet sources that say other numbers. There is no consensus that its exactly 6 million