Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2018 11:54 am
I do not deny it.
However, I do deny the idea that a viewpoint with many contestors is "established".
NationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
[DRAFT] Stopping the negation of truth
Page 2 of 3
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2018 11:54 amPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2018 11:58 amI do not deny it.
However, I do deny the idea that a viewpoint with many contestors is "established".
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:00 pmI would say when every peer reviewed study of the Holocaust from a professional academic historian reaffirms the Holocaust as a historical fact it becomes “established.”
If you don’t want to believe them? Talk to some survivors. Tell them that you’re not sure if what they lived through is “established” as having happened.
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:02 pmPrydania wrote:Petrolheadia wrote:I do not deny it.
However, I do deny the idea that a viewpoint with many contestors is "established".
I would say when every peer reviewed study of the Holocaust from a professional academic historian reaffirms the Holocaust as a historical fact it becomes “established.”
If you don’t want to believe them? Talk to some survivors. Tell them that you’re not sure if what they lived through is “established” as having happened.
I do not believe them, but whether the other studies are peer reviewed or not does not mean this narrative is uncontestes.
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:14 pmPetrolheadia wrote:Prydania wrote:I would say when every peer reviewed study of the Holocaust from a professional academic historian reaffirms the Holocaust as a historical fact it becomes “established.”
If you don’t want to believe them? Talk to some survivors. Tell them that you’re not sure if what they lived through is “established” as having happened.
I do not believe them, but whether the other studies are peer reviewed or not does not mean this narrative is uncontestes.
Who don’t you believe?
Professional, academic scholarship is based on the idea of proving something through evidence. Be it historical evidence, archeological evidence, or scientific evidence. Actual professional academics have uniformally declared that the Holocaust his an established, historical truth.
The people who “dispute” it are fringe amateur historians who have had their theories and papers rejected because their theories do not stand up to the evidence presented.
Add in the fact that the vast majority of people who deny the Holocaust are antisemitic proponents of the Nazi regime? And you have have the denial side riddled with problems dealing with bias, poor methodology, and shoddy “evidence.”
Or to put it this way? If someone tells you it’s raining and someone else tells you it’s sunny out it’s not your responsibility to assume both may be right. It’s your responsibility to stick your head out the window and figure out which one’s bullshitting you.
So when you metaphorically “stick your head out” to see which side is telling the truth on this issue? Well the mountains of peer reviewed research, survivor testimony, testimony from camp officials and German government officials, testimony from soldiers who liberated camps, not to mention photographic and physical evidence? It’s clear the Holocaust is historically established fact.
The people telling you didn’t happen are the people telling you it’s sunny in the middle of a rainstorm. You should be able to tell they’re full of shit with relatively little effort.
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:28 pm"Given how extensively my government has edited Araraukar's official past, they would be delighted with such a proposal that allowed them to punish anyone trying to discredit the historical facts as they officially exist. Personally I couldn't be more against this, given that I am one of the people who would be - in fact, was - negatively affected by going against established facts."
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:43 pmPrydania wrote:Petrolheadia wrote:I do not believe them, but whether the other studies are peer reviewed or not does not mean this narrative is uncontestes.
Who don’t you believe?
Professional, academic scholarship is based on the idea of proving something through evidence. Be it historical evidence, archeological evidence, or scientific evidence. Actual professional academics have uniformally declared that the Holocaust his an established, historical truth.
The people who “dispute” it are fringe amateur historians who have had their theories and papers rejected because their theories do not stand up to the evidence presented.
Add in the fact that the vast majority of people who deny the Holocaust are antisemitic proponents of the Nazi regime? And you have have the denial side riddled with problems dealing with bias, poor methodology, and shoddy “evidence.”
Or to put it this way? If someone tells you it’s raining and someone else tells you it’s sunny out it’s not your responsibility to assume both may be right. It’s your responsibility to stick your head out the window and figure out which one’s bullshitting you.
So when you metaphorically “stick your head out” to see which side is telling the truth on this issue? Well the mountains of peer reviewed research, survivor testimony, testimony from camp officials and German government officials, testimony from soldiers who liberated camps, not to mention photographic and physical evidence? It’s clear the Holocaust is historically established fact.
The people telling you didn’t happen are the people telling you it’s sunny in the middle of a rainstorm. You should be able to tell they’re full of shit with relatively little effort.
"What the honourable delegate from Prydania appears to be incapable of grasping is thus. People have a right to be wrong. They have a right to tell everybody why they believe their incorrect beliefs are in fact correct, and it is then the duty of those with correct beliefs to discredit them publicly. It is not the place of the world assembly, nor of any nation in it to attempt to legislate which beliefs, correct or incorrect, may be freely spoken."
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:46 pmPetrolheadia wrote:Prydania wrote:I would say when every peer reviewed study of the Holocaust from a professional academic historian reaffirms the Holocaust as a historical fact it becomes “established.”
If you don’t want to believe them? Talk to some survivors. Tell them that you’re not sure if what they lived through is “established” as having happened.
I do not believe them, but whether the other studies are peer reviewed or not does not mean this narrative is uncontestes.
Take your conspiracy theories back to NSG. This isn't the topic or the forum for it.
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:46 pm((OOC: From his prior posting on NSG I believe he is speaking in character.))
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:48 pmPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:00 pmGreater vakolicci haven wrote:"What the honourable delegate from Prydania appears to be incapable of grasping is thus. People have a right to be wrong. They have a right to tell everybody why they believe their incorrect beliefs are in fact correct, and it is then the duty of those with correct beliefs to discredit them publicly. It is not the place of the world assembly, nor of any nation in it to attempt to legislate which beliefs, correct or incorrect, may be freely spoken."
“What the honourable delegate from the Greater Vakolicci Haven seems incapable of grasping is that I have never once during this debate supported the proposed legislation. I have never once said people should be deprived of the right to be wrong.”
“This is not surprising. The honourable delegate from the Greater Vakolicci Haven seems like the assuming sort. I would ask, however, that they review my statements. They’ll see that all I have done is exactly what they themselves advocated- dismantle a false belief. That’s all.”
“I’ve never denied the right of people to be wrong, and I have never supported the proposed legislation. It would behoove the honourable delegate from the Greater Vakolicci Haven to actually review what I have said before casting disparaging judgements.”
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2018 11:53 pmHow would this proposal comport with National Economic Freedoms (#68), Freedom of the Press (#155), and Freedom of Religion (#430)?
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:48 amAraraukar wrote:"Given how extensively my government has edited Araraukar's official past, they would be delighted with such a proposal that allowed them to punish anyone trying to discredit the historical facts as they officially exist. Personally I couldn't be more against this, given that I am one of the people who would be - in fact, was - negatively affected by going against established facts."
"This proposal does need some clauses preventing governments, not individuals, from contradicting known historical truth. I do however wonder about how feasible this may be, given that governments will always consider their version of history the only version that is true.
The current wording of the clauses will also conceivably prevent folk from disputing their governments' version of the past, so could have a net negative impact on the common knowledge of true historicity."
Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:43 amKenmoria wrote:"This proposal does need some clauses preventing governments, not individuals, from contradicting known historical truth. I do however wonder about how feasible this may be, given that governments will always consider their version of history the only version that is true."
"As long as "clearly established historical facts" is used in the proposal text, the government's truth will remain as the "known historical truth"."
Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:46 amKenmoria wrote:Araraukar wrote:"Given how extensively my government has edited Araraukar's official past, they would be delighted with such a proposal that allowed them to punish anyone trying to discredit the historical facts as they officially exist. Personally I couldn't be more against this, given that I am one of the people who would be - in fact, was - negatively affected by going against established facts."
"This proposal does need some clauses preventing governments, not individuals, from contradicting known historical truth. I do however wonder about how feasible this may be, given that governments will always consider their version of history the only version that is true."
"No. That would infringe on freedom of speech by banning governmental institutions from challenging the known historical narrative".
Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:47 am((OOC: In this case, my in-character opinion aligns with out-of-character - a narrative with a significant contester movement is not "uncontested".))
Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 1:42 amAraraukar wrote:Kenmoria wrote:"This proposal does need some clauses preventing governments, not individuals, from contradicting known historical truth. I do however wonder about how feasible this may be, given that governments will always consider their version of history the only version that is true."
"As long as "clearly established historical facts" is used in the proposal text, the government's truth will remain as the "known historical truth"."
Correct. It permits the rewriting of history, a common tool of oppressive regimes throughout history, and then backs that up with penalties under international law should any independent voices within a country using this practice speak out. This is the last thing that this Assembly should be supporting.
Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 9:09 amOOC: It is "uncontested," as the only people who question the historicity of the Holocaust are antisemitic conspiracy theorists. Not actual historians.
I'm echoing Wallenburg. Take your conspiratorial nonsense back to NSG.
Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 1:26 pmTeretstein wrote:Araraukar wrote:"As long as "clearly established historical facts" is used in the proposal text, the government's truth will remain as the "known historical truth"."
Correct. It permits the rewriting of history, a common tool of oppressive regimes throughout history, and then backs that up with penalties under international law should any independent voices within a country using this practice speak out. This is the last thing that this Assembly should be supporting.
We just passed the Freedom of Speech resolution. So the original bill is in conflict and this rework would be duplication.
Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 6:13 pmLOL. Have you read that resolution, it's not.
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 12:04 amImperium Anglorum wrote:The purpose of this proposal is to prohibit Holocaust denial.
I permit the submission of this proposal by a person who is already a GA author, with appropriate substitution of arbitrary text to the preamble, where the operative clause is unchanged.
[OOC: Holocaust is a RL event. Be sure to not include any reference to it in the resolution draft, or it will make it illegal. EDIT: oof, I didn't see how many posts you have to your name. You probably don't need this advice
] Sacredotia supports this draft, however you should define clearly historical facts. "Denial of which is not possible without presenting spurious evidence"?
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 2:08 amDefining what is a clearly established historical fact is going to be necessary. Right now, people are pretending that any claim at all counts as a CEHF.
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 5:47 amImperium Anglorum wrote:Defining what is a clearly established historical fact is going to be necessary. Right now, people are pretending that any claim at all counts as a CEHF.
"That's an awful litigious solution to what is ultimately a social problem. This is better left to member states as a 'may regulate' option than a 'shall regulate' one."
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 6:04 amOOC: There are many people that claim the earth is flat and that the ground is accelerating upward at 9.81 m/s^2. Does that mean gravity is not well established? You seem to be a pretty good example of why this proposal is necessary. It doesn't matter how many people contest a theory if there is indisputable evidence corroborating it.
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 7:13 amSciongrad wrote:Petrolheadia wrote:I do not deny it.
However, I do deny the idea that a viewpoint with many contestors is "established".
OOC: There are many people that claim the earth is flat and that the ground is accelerating upward at 9.81 m/s^2. Does that mean gravity is not well established? You seem to be a pretty good example of why this proposal is necessary. It doesn't matter how many people contest a theory if there is indisputable evidence corroborating it.
OOC: That definition had better be air friggin' tight. It's reasonable for the WA to legislate on law and economics without too much concern; it's way less reasonable to legislate on epistemology. A government with secrets and an "official story" to conceal them is going to have a particular view of "clearly established historical facts" that is entirely at odds with the usual litany of righteous things we all hold dear. Despite my RL support of e.g. Antifa, I do think it's healthier for society to have these people out in the open where they can be ridiculed and refuted; rather than hiding away for fear of prosecution. I understand places like Germany have very good reasons for taking the opposite view, but even they don't prosecute Young Earth Creationists. There's something of an admission of defeat in actually banning speech - it says the "official story" is so weak and poorly attested that it can't stand up to even the most flagrant lies without the use of force to make its opponents shut up and disappear. And this is the view we're trying to propound even in states with no history of deniers committing atrocities.
As I say, you'll need an air-tight definition.