NationStates

Sierra Lyricalia wrote: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.

The official story that the Holocaust happened 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. /s

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Sierra Lyricalia wrote: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.

The official story that the Holocaust happened 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. /s

If you go around criminalizing Holocaust denial, that's kind of what you admit.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: 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.

OOC: ^This exactly.

Not everything about history is completely clear-cut and easily proven, especially when historians are relying on written history. The saying "history is written by the victors" is unfortunately very true, and even with RL history, the people who could actually write, tended to be a minority, most texts were written on easily perishable materials, and during societal upheavals texts also get lost/destroyed unintentionally. That's why the fall of the Roman Empire is still contested, with dozens of theories that are all based on "clearly established historical facts" - it's just that there are so few historical facts available from that time, that making wildly varying theories is easy.

In Araraukar's IC history there are many points where much of what had been actually written down or existed recorded by artefacts, was actually lost or intentionally destroyed by whoever happened to win each war. Given the current regime intends to stay the ruling regime ad infinitum, they have intentionally destroyed historical artifacts that would provide any solid clues of the official truth not being the actual or the full truth. Any alternative theories get published as historical fiction, which means they'll never be able to gain enough foothold in the scientific history studies to even get considered to be based on actual facts.

Scientific theories are based on seeing if actual facts match up with your idea on something, so when the available actual facts do match up with your story of How History Really Happened, it is scientifically accurate, even if only because anything not matching said story was destroyed, either in the past by the people living at the time, or in the modern era.

For RL references, see how history management works in China.

I've just added a Holocaust denial clause to another draft so I'd like to be sympathetic, but the requirement to prohibit the denial of all historical facts makes this a totalitarian's charter - or at least it would do if it were in any way possible to enact. I'm inclined to think this proposal must be a subtle piece of satire.

Wallenburg wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:The official story that the Holocaust happened 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. /s

If you go around criminalizing Holocaust denial, that's kind of what you admit.

Is that true? Or do you recognize that Holocaust denial is a perlocutionary act, not simply a harmless expression of personal opinion. Because when a particular false narrative is based on animus, it cannot only signal to other like-minded individuals that their views are more popular than they initially thought, but can even increase the likelihood of violence. Germany does not criminalize Holocaust denial because it does not believe there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it happened, but because it believes that Holocaust denial is dangerous.

Sciongrad wrote:Is that true? Or do you recognize that Holocaust denial is a perlocutionary act, not simply a harmless expression of personal opinion. Because when a particular false narrative is based on animus, it cannot only signal to other like-minded individuals that their views are more popular than they initially thought, but can even increase the likelihood of violence.

OOC: And for those of us that aren't well-versed on Latin-based English words...

Isn't all communication by that definition "perlocutionary"?

My first reading for "animus" was the third one, and that made Scion's sentence more than a little weird...

Philosophy of language divides speech into 3 separate acts: locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary. These are respectively the speaking of the words, their meaning, and the effect caused. For example, two well muscled gentlemen of Sicilian extraction enter a small business and say "Real nice place you got here, it would be a shame if anything were to... happen to it." The locutionary act is to speak the words, the illocutionary act is to threaten the business owner and the perlocutionary act is to make them pay protection money. These three are not separable even though the words spoken are superficially innocent.

In a similar way, Holocaust denial is not a locutionary act alone. It comes with inseparable baggage, as Sciongrad explained.

Similar considerations explain why the right to free speech doesn't mean one can necessarily freely say "I promise..." "Fire!" or "You, outside, now."

Uan aa Boa wrote:Philosophy of language divides speech into 3 separate acts: locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary. These are respectively the speaking of the words, their meaning, and the effect caused. For example, two well muscled gentlemen of Sicilian extraction enter a small business and say "Real nice place you got here, it would be a shame if anything were to... happen to it." The locutionary act is to speak the words, the illocutionary act is to threaten the business owner and the perlocutionary act is to make them pay protection money. These three are not separable even though the words spoken are superficially innocent.

In a similar way, Holocaust denial is not a locutionary act alone. It comes with inseparable baggage, as Sciongrad explained.

Similar considerations explain why the right to free speech doesn't mean one can necessarily freely say "I promise..." "Fire!" or "You, outside, now."

There in lies the problem: Because your scenario supposes that the situation context is always a malicious act. But suppose I am watching a TV show with this scenario. If three gentlemen say your line about how nice the place is, the inference is a threat... but what if the narrative is a comedy and the three gentlemen are large Scicillians who are earnestly fans of the interior decor choices of the proprietor and wish to pay him compliment. This gag would be criminal by an act but the merit of the message... that we should not fear people because of our stereotypes of them is a noble message. As observed in the movie V for Vendetta, artists, especially writers, are people who use lies to tell the truth.

I only support this if

A. Only the biggest and most obvious Historical facts such as the Holocaust are protected from negation.

B. Scientific facts with sufficient evidence such as two sexes and a round Earth are protected.

C. This law is purely only created to fight lies in general rather than to target an unamed political opposition to the party in power in some countries

D. Jokes and satire are exempt from these laws.

Kuwi wrote:such as two sexes

And this is why we can't have anything like this.

Kuwi wrote:I only support this if

A. Only the biggest and most obvious Historical facts such as the Holocaust are protected from negation.

B. Scientific facts with sufficient evidence such as two sexes and a round Earth are protected.

C. This law is purely only created to fight lies in general rather than to target an unamed political opposition to the party in power in some countries

D. Jokes and satire are exempt from these laws.

"Would exemption D cover your delegation, ambassador, or is diplomacy totally out?"

Kuwi wrote:B. Scientific facts with sufficient evidence such as two sexes and a round Earth are protected.

From Joshua Kennon’s blog:

“The six biological karyotype sexes that do not result in death to the fetus are:

X – Roughly 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 5,000 people (Turner’s )
XX – Most common form of female
XXY – Roughly 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000 people (Klinefelter)
XY – Most common form of male
XYY – Roughly 1 out of 1,000 people
XXXY – Roughly 1 in 18,000 to 1 in 50,000 births

When you consider that there are 7,000,000,000 alive on the planet, there are almost assuredly tens of millions of people who are not male or female. Many times, these people are unaware of their true sex. It’s interesting to note that everyone assumes that they, personally, are XY or XX. One study in Great Britain showed that 97 out of 100 people who were XYY had no idea. They thought they were a traditional male and had few signs otherwise.”

Point of Order: The debate at hand is about denial of historical fact, not scientific fact, please let us return to the matter of legislation on genocide denial.

Anyone can be holocaust deniers if he wants but does it make them sane. No it doesn't

"The Republic of Akila strongly supports the spirit of this legislation, as it believes that knowledge of the past and the acknowledgement of past sins is critical to growth. Having said that, I am not sure we can support this legislation. What defines historical fact? What is historical fact in one nation may be historical fiction in another and vice versa. The matter of historical denial is a rather serious problem. I am just not sure if legislation is the proper method of solving it," Ambassador Twilight Sparkle said, looking at the somewhat bare proposal intensely as if trying will a perfect answer to such a perfect problem.

OOC: Object, Holocaust happened in real world, so we can't use it in nationstates proposals, can we? Plus it is some kind of deceitful way to destabilize dictatorships who are constantly lying to their citizens. Dictators use lies to prevent people from revolting, to spread authoritarianism and propaganda. If all truth is revealed then dictators will fall down from power. Basically this is back door ideological ban, isn't it?!

Tell me where the word Holocaust is in the proposal.

Dawn Kingdom wrote:OOC: Basically this is back door ideological ban, isn't it?!

OOC: N...no...it isn't...