Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 301 to 332 of 332

Thread: Tone of conversation

  1. #301
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers
    And the "tolerant" left-wing mob shows up just in time


    You were criticized by a single poster, snowflake. Some mob. Your victim complex is getting out of control.
    You are now piling on. Congratulations - you are part of the mob.
    Pointing out that you were criticized by a single person and not a mob is not piling on. It's a statement of factual reality.

  2. #302

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    What opinions did you share that you feel you need to hide like a coward while the majority of the rest of us are posting from publicly identifiable usernames? You know why you are hiding, like a coward, afraid of his own postings coming back to haunt him. I dont care to know your real name. But I'm sure you friends, family, coworkers might care to know the bullspit you post.
    The only opinion I shared that make me want to keep my anonymity here was to dare to defend President Trump.

    That opinion alone is enough for a lot of extremists on the far-left to publicly harass and attack you (like I said, this forum is visible to the public and all sorts of anonymous lurkers).

    Keep wasting your time with the name-calling and telling me how you desire to advertise anything you think is questionable to the people in my life. I don't care if you respect my decision to stay anonymous or not.
    Last edited by MrOilers; 31-10-2018 at 11:51 AM.

  3. #303

    Default

    There are no extremists here, and no one is far-left. You seem to think that anyone that opposes Trump and his far-right opinions and base of supporters that they are communists or far left just shows how out of touch with reality you are.

    And you certainly do care what I think, or you wouldn't be having this back and forth, and you wouldn't cry blue any time someone regurgitates what you are saying back to you.

  4. #304

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    There are no extremists here
    You know all the anonymous lurkers who may come here and read things without creating accounts?


    , and no one is far-left.
    Yes, there is a far left. And many people are far-left. Maybe even more than on the far-right. It would benefit everyone immensely if this was acknowledged, just as everyone acknowledges the dangers of the people on the far-right. Then maybe the world could avoid the massacres, torture, starvation, false imprisonment, mass suffering, and industrialized murder that communism (far-left idea) has proven to bring. History's villains on the far-left can match any numbers of history's villains on the far-right.
    Last edited by MrOilers; 31-10-2018 at 11:57 AM.

  5. #305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    There are no extremists here
    You know all the anonymous lurkers who may come here and read things without creating accounts?


    , and no one is far-left.
    Yes, there is a far left. And many people are far-left. Maybe even more than on the far-right. It would benefit everyone immensely if this was acknowledged. Then maybe the world could avoid the massacres, torture, starvation, false imprisonment, mass suffering, and industrialized murder that communism (far-left idea) has proven to bring. History's villains on the far-left can match any numbers of history's villains on the far-right.
    Just wow dude. CrusaderPI

  6. #306

    Default

    Wow, dude.

    So you deny the murder of 100+ million people (and all of the other mass torture and starvation) last century due to communism, because you want to continue to deny there is a far left?

    Alrighty, then.

  7. #307

  8. #308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    There are no extremists here
    You know all the anonymous lurkers who may come here and read things without creating accounts?


    , and no one is far-left.
    Yes, there is a far left. And many people are far-left. Maybe even more than on the far-right. It would benefit everyone immensely if this was acknowledged, just as everyone acknowledges the dangers of the people on the far-right. Then maybe the world could avoid the massacres, torture, starvation, false imprisonment, mass suffering, and industrialized murder that communism (far-left idea) has proven to bring. History's villains on the far-left can match any numbers of history's villains on the far-right.
    In this Leftist Mob Caravan, “go into the middle and search. You’re gonna find MS-13, your gonna find Middle Eastern, you’re going to find everything.”

    MrOilers, you have taken your fear mongering to the next extreme.

    There is no lefty mob. Period, full stop.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  9. #309

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Wow, dude.

    So you deny the murder of 100+ million people (and all of the other mass torture and starvation) last century due to communism, because you want to continue to deny there is a far left?

    Alrighty, then.
    Wow, I didn't realize that I did all that today before my second coffee.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  10. #310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Magnus View Post
    Wheres the candy, dammit, Its HALLOWEEN. We know where you work.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  11. #311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Wow, dude.

    So you deny the murder of 100+ million people (and all of the other mass torture and starvation) last century due to communism, because you want to continue to deny there is a far left?

    Alrighty, then.
    Wow, I didn't realize that I did all that today before my second coffee.
    Many people in Canada - including some who will read this - have relatives and ancestors who were killed/tortured/imprisoned/starved by communist regimes that took over their home countries. And you make jokes about it.

  12. #312

    Default

    I think there were some right wing fascists that participated in 'the murder of 100+ million people (and all of the other mass torture and starvation) last century'

    You simply don't understand that I am trying to prevent more atrocities. You on the other hand support the Trump doctrine.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  13. #313
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    The Nazi episode has left a permanently bad taste in my mouth. There are things that are not up for discussion; this is one of them. It has also underscored the difference between being responsible enough to post under your own name, and hiding behind anonymous nicknames.

    I no longer want to have anything to do with a place where anonymous cowards are encouraged to post defences of genocide while the administrator, one Richard Skerner, places himself in their camp by allowing it to go on. Mealy mouthed denials mean nothing.

    Alex Shetsen
    Would you go to dinner at somebodies place and spit out the sides of broccoli and spinach not to your taste and complain with disgust that the food was not to your liking. While yelling cowards at the other guests for not being just as insensitive?

    While I definitely concur with most of your post I find it bad form to specifically fault the host. At worst I feel Richard may err, even grievously, on this side of allowing speech as I stated. By no means should that include holocaust denying. I certainly won't infer the worst of the host, as I sense you have done, but I share with you the apprehension, and sick feeling about coming to a board where holocaust denying has been allowed. I think any learning that comes from this is that it should not have been allowed to continue. That OP and thread should have been deleted. I say that categorically despite being a guest. Its just that nature of concern that its clear it should not have been allowed. But I don't wish to critique the host, only the action of allowing it, which in my impression was a very unfortunate judgement call on something that should not be a judgement call. Holocaust denial is unequivocal. It should not be allowed to persist. The response to it should be uniform prohibition of it.
    is holocaust denial odious and vile? absolutely.

    are there growing numbers of holocaust deniers? equally absolutely.

    is it a benign opinion focused entirely on history or a harbinger/accompaniment to current day odious and vile opinions? absolutely the latter.

    where would you suggest those odious and vile opinions be exposed for what they are? gab? the preacher's youtube comments section? the daily stormer? the renegade tribune? how long do you think your rebuking the deniers would be accepted in any of those places?

    i don't believe for a moment this site's administration had any intent to allow this site - or even a single thread in it - to advocate denial. you say holocaust denial should not be allowed to exist but you don't suggest how to eliminate it or how to make it less attractive or how to make it less acceptable. this isn't something where you can hold your breath until you turn blue and it will somehow disappear.

    if it is only allowed to flourish under rocks and in dark places then flourish it will. uniform prohibition will not eliminate it. the only thing that will eliminate it is to shine flood lights on it and expose it for what it is.

    how do you become outraged when the donald describes himself as "a nationalist at war with the globalists" when you don't even know the language being spoken?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  14. #314

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    I think there were some right wing fascists that participated in 'the murder of 100+ million people (and all of the other mass torture and starvation) last century'

    You simply don't understand that I am trying to prevent more atrocities. You on the other hand support the Trump doctrine.
    The Trump doctrine?

    Now you sound paranoid.

  15. #315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    I think there were some right wing fascists that participated in 'the murder of 100+ million people (and all of the other mass torture and starvation) last century'

    Yes, there absolutely was. The political extremes on both ends - collectivism by class (far-left) or collectivism by race (far-right) - completely destroy individuals and individual rights. Some of my relatives and ancestors sufferend under both, and there effectively was no difference in the results.

  16. #316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    I think there were some right wing fascists that participated in 'the murder of 100+ million people (and all of the other mass torture and starvation) last century'

    You simply don't understand that I am trying to prevent more atrocities. You on the other hand support the Trump doctrine.
    The Trump doctrine?

    Now you sound paranoid.
    From the guy who claims there is a leftist mob.

    You are too funny. SAD
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  17. #317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    The Nazi episode has left a permanently bad taste in my mouth. There are things that are not up for discussion; this is one of them. It has also underscored the difference between being responsible enough to post under your own name, and hiding behind anonymous nicknames.

    I no longer want to have anything to do with a place where anonymous cowards are encouraged to post defences of genocide while the administrator, one Richard Skerner, places himself in their camp by allowing it to go on. Mealy mouthed denials mean nothing.

    Alex Shetsen
    Would you go to dinner at somebodies place and spit out the sides of broccoli and spinach not to your taste and complain with disgust that the food was not to your liking. While yelling cowards at the other guests for not being just as insensitive?

    While I definitely concur with most of your post I find it bad form to specifically fault the host. At worst I feel Richard may err, even grievously, on this side of allowing speech as I stated. By no means should that include holocaust denying. I certainly won't infer the worst of the host, as I sense you have done, but I share with you the apprehension, and sick feeling about coming to a board where holocaust denying has been allowed. I think any learning that comes from this is that it should not have been allowed to continue. That OP and thread should have been deleted. I say that categorically despite being a guest. Its just that nature of concern that its clear it should not have been allowed. But I don't wish to critique the host, only the action of allowing it, which in my impression was a very unfortunate judgement call on something that should not be a judgement call. Holocaust denial is unequivocal. It should not be allowed to persist. The response to it should be uniform prohibition of it.
    is holocaust denial odious and vile? absolutely.

    are there growing numbers of holocaust deniers? equally absolutely.

    is it a benign opinion focused entirely on history or a harbinger/accompaniment to current day odious and vile opinions? absolutely the latter.

    where would you suggest those odious and vile opinions be exposed for what they are? gab? the preacher's youtube comments section? the daily stormer? the renegade tribune? how long do you think your rebuking the deniers would be accepted in any of those places?

    i don't believe for a moment this site's administration had any intent to allow this site - or even a single thread in it - to advocate denial. you say holocaust denial should not be allowed to exist but you don't suggest how to eliminate it or how to make it less attractive or how to make it less acceptable. this isn't something where you can hold your breath until you turn blue and it will somehow disappear.

    if it is only allowed to flourish under rocks and in dark places then flourish it will. uniform prohibition will not eliminate it. the only thing that will eliminate it is to shine flood lights on it and expose it for what it is.

    how do you become outraged when the donald describes himself as "a nationalist at war with the globalists" when you don't even know the language being spoken?
    Holocaust denial is hate speech. I don't look at it in any different terms than that. It isn't a dialog, it isn't something that requires refutation. ENGAGING in discussion with a holocaust denier only affords the denier the chance to stand on a pulpit with more objective others. To that end it ALLOWS them on that stage. I'm not the only one citing that concern. Its a commonly expressed danger in engaging holocaust deniers. Quite clearly in the case of the ignorant and stupid soul that was denying in that thread it allowed them several days and countless posts denying the holocaust.

    Philosophically we disagree with how best to confront this, which is fine, neither of us are engaged in harm by doing so. We're merely discussing how to best respond. The difference is I won't engage. I will confront and report, but didn't in this instance out of respect for the board and other users. To be clear. Although I did confront, I refused to engage, consistent with principles on this.

    The site represents a stage, a speakers corner as it were. The Holocaust denier should not have been allowed that stage, as soon as it was noted, for any longer than it took to detect it. I am NOT however stating, in any way, that the site allowing the thread was advocating support of that view. Not sure why you stated that when I made myself clear and the admin has made it clear. This doesn't change, however, that consent was granted for the thread continuing for any length of time after admin had reviewed which WAS a mistake. A potentially grievous one.


    I'll say this clearly too. I know that it is problematic for the admin to engage in that thread, thereby noting the presence of it, and deciding on allowing continuance. The prudent action would be immediate closure, and deletion, while keeping a record of it in case its required. This is not an opinion, this is what should have occurred.
    Last edited by Replacement; 31-10-2018 at 01:54 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  18. #318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Wow, dude.

    So you deny the murder of 100+ million people (and all of the other mass torture and starvation) last century due to communism, because you want to continue to deny there is a far left?

    Alrighty, then.
    Wow, I didn't realize that I did all that today before my second coffee.
    damn dat german efficiency LOL

  19. #319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Magnus View Post
    Wheres the candy, dammit, Its HALLOWEEN. We know where you work.
    Love it!

    Thanks!

    Some, not seeing the insanity and humour of it all, might see C2e as a scary place year round.

    Argument Clinic - Monty Python
    https://youtu.be/ppK6sxz6epk

  20. #320

    Default

    wait, communism caused the murder of 100+ million people? It wasn't (Nazi) Socialism? Make Germany Great Again! Germany first! Sounds familar!

  21. #321

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    The Nazi episode has left a permanently bad taste in my mouth. There are things that are not up for discussion; this is one of them. It has also underscored the difference between being responsible enough to post under your own name, and hiding behind anonymous nicknames.

    I no longer want to have anything to do with a place where anonymous cowards are encouraged to post defences of genocide while the administrator, one Richard Skerner, places himself in their camp by allowing it to go on. Mealy mouthed denials mean nothing.

    Alex Shetsen
    Would you go to dinner at somebodies place and spit out the sides of broccoli and spinach not to your taste and complain with disgust that the food was not to your liking. While yelling cowards at the other guests for not being just as insensitive?

    While I definitely concur with most of your post I find it bad form to specifically fault the host. At worst I feel Richard may err, even grievously, on this side of allowing speech as I stated. By no means should that include holocaust denying. I certainly won't infer the worst of the host, as I sense you have done, but I share with you the apprehension, and sick feeling about coming to a board where holocaust denying has been allowed. I think any learning that comes from this is that it should not have been allowed to continue. That OP and thread should have been deleted. I say that categorically despite being a guest. Its just that nature of concern that its clear it should not have been allowed. But I don't wish to critique the host, only the action of allowing it, which in my impression was a very unfortunate judgement call on something that should not be a judgement call. Holocaust denial is unequivocal. It should not be allowed to persist. The response to it should be uniform prohibition of it.
    is holocaust denial odious and vile? absolutely.

    are there growing numbers of holocaust deniers? equally absolutely.

    is it a benign opinion focused entirely on history or a harbinger/accompaniment to current day odious and vile opinions? absolutely the latter.

    where would you suggest those odious and vile opinions be exposed for what they are? gab? the preacher's youtube comments section? the daily stormer? the renegade tribune? how long do you think your rebuking the deniers would be accepted in any of those places?

    i don't believe for a moment this site's administration had any intent to allow this site - or even a single thread in it - to advocate denial. you say holocaust denial should not be allowed to exist but you don't suggest how to eliminate it or how to make it less attractive or how to make it less acceptable. this isn't something where you can hold your breath until you turn blue and it will somehow disappear.

    if it is only allowed to flourish under rocks and in dark places then flourish it will. uniform prohibition will not eliminate it. the only thing that will eliminate it is to shine flood lights on it and expose it for what it is.

    how do you become outraged when the donald describes himself as "a nationalist at war with the globalists" when you don't even know the language being spoken?
    Holocaust denial is hate speech. I don't look at it in any different terms than that. It isn't a dialog, it isn't something that requires refutation. ENGAGING in discussion with a holocaust denier only affords the denier the chance to stand on a pulpit with more objective others. To that end it ALLOWS them on that stage. I'm not the only one citing that concern. Its a commonly expressed danger in engaging holocaust deniers. Quite clearly in the case of the ignorant and stupid soul that was denying in that thread it allowed them several days and countless posts denying the holocaust.

    Philosophically we disagree with how best to confront this, which is fine, neither of us are engaged in harm by doing so. We're merely discussing how to best respond. The difference is I won't engage. I will confront and report, but didn't in this instance out of respect for the board and other users. To be clear. Although I did confront, I refused to engage, consistent with principles on this.

    The site represents a stage, a speakers corner as it were. The Holocaust denier should not have been allowed that stage, as soon as it was noted, for any longer than it took to detect it. I am NOT however stating, in any way, that the site allowing the thread was advocating support of that view. Not sure why you stated that when I made myself clear and the admin has made it clear. This doesn't change, however, that consent was granted for the thread continuing for any length of time after admin had reviewed which WAS a mistake. A potentially grievous one.


    I'll say this clearly too. I know that it is problematic for the admin to engage in that thread, thereby noting the presence of it, and deciding on allowing continuance. The prudent action would be immediate closure, and deletion, while keeping a record of it in case its required. This is not an opinion, this is what should have occurred.
    Interesting and well said. So, ok I could live with this approach.

    However, so as not to be biased against other atrocities, do the same rules apply to threads started about, say, John A MacDonald, Christopher Columbus, and so on? (As with slavery, residential schools, ...).

    Basically, ignorance of the historical record is no excuse.
    Last edited by KC; 31-10-2018 at 04:03 PM.

  22. #322

    Default

    Oh lets not forget merca got 2 passes on nuking 2 japanese citys....... but hey germans do killing its a no go

  23. #323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    wait, communism caused the murder of 100+ million people?
    Yes, it did.

    (sounds like you need to read up on that topic)



    It wasn't (Nazi) Socialism?
    Yes, them too (if you count the deaths in the war caused by Germany, in addition to the Nazi death camps)


    Make Germany Great Again! Germany first! Sounds familar!

    ???

  24. #324
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    The Nazi episode has left a permanently bad taste in my mouth. There are things that are not up for discussion; this is one of them. It has also underscored the difference between being responsible enough to post under your own name, and hiding behind anonymous nicknames.

    I no longer want to have anything to do with a place where anonymous cowards are encouraged to post defences of genocide while the administrator, one Richard Skerner, places himself in their camp by allowing it to go on. Mealy mouthed denials mean nothing.

    Alex Shetsen
    Would you go to dinner at somebodies place and spit out the sides of broccoli and spinach not to your taste and complain with disgust that the food was not to your liking. While yelling cowards at the other guests for not being just as insensitive?

    While I definitely concur with most of your post I find it bad form to specifically fault the host. At worst I feel Richard may err, even grievously, on this side of allowing speech as I stated. By no means should that include holocaust denying. I certainly won't infer the worst of the host, as I sense you have done, but I share with you the apprehension, and sick feeling about coming to a board where holocaust denying has been allowed. I think any learning that comes from this is that it should not have been allowed to continue. That OP and thread should have been deleted. I say that categorically despite being a guest. Its just that nature of concern that its clear it should not have been allowed. But I don't wish to critique the host, only the action of allowing it, which in my impression was a very unfortunate judgement call on something that should not be a judgement call. Holocaust denial is unequivocal. It should not be allowed to persist. The response to it should be uniform prohibition of it.
    is holocaust denial odious and vile? absolutely.

    are there growing numbers of holocaust deniers? equally absolutely.

    is it a benign opinion focused entirely on history or a harbinger/accompaniment to current day odious and vile opinions? absolutely the latter.

    where would you suggest those odious and vile opinions be exposed for what they are? gab? the preacher's youtube comments section? the daily stormer? the renegade tribune? how long do you think your rebuking the deniers would be accepted in any of those places?

    i don't believe for a moment this site's administration had any intent to allow this site - or even a single thread in it - to advocate denial. you say holocaust denial should not be allowed to exist but you don't suggest how to eliminate it or how to make it less attractive or how to make it less acceptable. this isn't something where you can hold your breath until you turn blue and it will somehow disappear.

    if it is only allowed to flourish under rocks and in dark places then flourish it will. uniform prohibition will not eliminate it. the only thing that will eliminate it is to shine flood lights on it and expose it for what it is.

    how do you become outraged when the donald describes himself as "a nationalist at war with the globalists" when you don't even know the language being spoken?
    Holocaust denial is hate speech. I don't look at it in any different terms than that. It isn't a dialog, it isn't something that requires refutation. ENGAGING in discussion with a holocaust denier only affords the denier the chance to stand on a pulpit with more objective others. To that end it ALLOWS them on stage. I'm not the only one citing that concern. Its a commonly expressed harm in engaging holocaust deniers. Quite clearly in the case of the ignorant and stupid soul that was denying in that thread it allowed them several days and countless posts denying the holocaust.

    Philosophically we disagree with how best to confront this, which is fine, neither of us are engaged in harm by doing so. We're merely discussing how to respond. The difference is I won't engage. I will confront and report, but didn't in this instance out of respect for the board and other users. To be clear. Although I did confront, I refused to engage, consistent with my principles on this.

    The site represents a stage, a speakers corner as it were. The Holocaust denier should not have been allowed that stage, as soon as it was noted, for any longer than it took to notice it. I am NOT however stating, in any way that the site allowing the thread was advocating support of that view. Not sure why you stated that when I made myself clear and the admin has made it clear. This doesn't change though that consent was granted for the thread continuing which WAS a mistake. A grievous one.
    i used to feel as you do and as strongly as you do that that is the only proper and respectful response.

    but after not just still seeing it decades after my first being exposed to it (noting that it has existed for decades if not centuries prior to my personal exposure), but seeing it growing stronger and more organized and thriving in places i never would have anticipated it might reach and thrive, i wonder if that's still the best or the only approach.

    i acknowledge the risk of providing exposure to what shouldn't exist but (a) it does exist and (b) i don't see it being reduced with anything approaching the zeal and the efforts and the disguises they use to continue to further their growth and their aims.

    i acknowledge that same sense of feeling dirty even when rebuking/rebutting but forcing it underground and then pretending its not there and it doesn't need rebuke only seems to allow it to broaden its base.

    it's not like a plant that dies from too much attention in the form of water or sunlight, it's like an organism that thrives when left alone unchallenged in the dark.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  25. #325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    [
    Interesting and well said. So, ok I could live with this approach.

    However, so as not to be biased against other atrocities, do the same rules apply to threads started about, say, John A MacDonald, Christopher Columbus, and so on? (As with slavery, residential schools, ...).

    Basically, ignorance of the historical record is no excuse.
    KC, I want you to consider your reply, and the reductionist bookend that Dark Magnus provided.

    Because I'm somewhat mystified you don't see it.

    For at least once in human history an atrocity was effectively remembered as testimony to victims, sufferers, generations, and so that we could work towards avoiding the past, always remembering it, NEVER denying it. To build a better humanity for all. It really is that simple.

    The sad thing is that human history has involved so much atrocity. In time, and with effort isn't it possible that other peoples would ideally be granted the peace, and modicum of closure that their people did not die in vain.

    We have an example with the holocaust where grief has resulted in the most effective display of mans inhumanity to man. A message that should not be forgot, that should only spread. For once we have an atrocity that is not allowed to be denied so that a people do not have to spend the rest of eternity having the ignorant disturb established graves with their blatant hate and denial. Of course the message is that all atrocity is tragic. It isn't a competition of atrocity. Its just one atrocity has been very effectively demarked, showcased, so that humanity can forever learn from it. I only wish for more of this.

    I'm sorry I don't know how to express this. The emotion is too pronounced for me to put words together adequately. Hopefully the post made some kind of sense.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  26. #326

    Default

    Kcantor. Again, I don't really know how to reply, but did want to thank you for your post and thanks again for taking a good look and considering what I stated. WE both acknowledge the risks, the changes, concerns but philosophically disagree on how moving forward we confront such things.

    Your last sentence is where we fundamentally disagree. If the world was taking a Neville Chamberlain response to terror than I might agree. Maybe it even is and I'm not seeing it. I think using your analogy all I'm saying is if the organism is dead, don't allow it light and photosynthesis. In that way allowing speech on holocaust denial IS potentially harmful.

    I did note in your patient exchanges (and I don't how you do that) with the ignorant holocaust denier, that you'd mentioned you are speaking in general, to an audience of readers (can't remember how you put it) but I would challenge that the cross section of adamant deniers, that would be both reading the thread on C2E and that would think differently as a result of it, probably approaches zero.


    I'm not sure what your experience with hate is but mine, with chronic holocaust deniers is that they bring that hate to their graves. I've found it to be an often incurable hate. I'm German heritage stating this. Well read on the subject too. Those Germans that abided by Fascism and hate that later renounced it did so quickly. It didn't take long for many Germans to awaken from the nightmare. Thankfully. But other Germans, they didn't renounce, they didn't ever, they took their hate and bile to their graves still believing in the lies, still believing in the denial, still believing in the hate. I can say a lot more on this, on a personal and familial level, but maybe some other time, some pm. I'm highly impacted, for reasons I won't go into here, right now.

    Finally, its a fallacy, I think, to believe that hate and holocaust denial responds to reason. Its possible more the case that it may be our own projection, our belief that we are well thought out, convincing, that maybe has us feel we can convince others, even hateful holocaust denying others. Again the likelihood of that approaches zero. So that the best,a nd also advised response is to note the hate and summarily respond to it. Not to engage it in anyway. Just confront, report, and go. With Holocaust denial and other vile hate, debating the hate goes nowhere.
    Last edited by Replacement; 01-11-2018 at 11:46 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  27. #327
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    [
    Interesting and well said. So, ok I could live with this approach.

    However, so as not to be biased against other atrocities, do the same rules apply to threads started about, say, John A MacDonald, Christopher Columbus, and so on? (As with slavery, residential schools, ...).

    Basically, ignorance of the historical record is no excuse.
    KC, I want you to consider your reply, and the reductionist bookend that Dark Magnus provided.

    Because I'm somewhat mystified you don't see it.

    For at least once in human history an atrocity was effectively remembered as testimony to victims, sufferers, generations, and so that we could work towards avoiding the past, always remembering it, NEVER denying it. To build a better humanity for all. It really is that simple.

    The sad thing is that human history has involved so much atrocity. In time, and with effort isn't it possible that other peoples would ideally be granted the peace, and modicum of closure that their people did not die in vain.

    We have an example with the holocaust where grief has resulted in the most effective display of mans inhumanity to man. A message that should not be forgot, that should only spread. For once we have an atrocity that is not allowed to be denied so that a people do not have to spend the rest of eternity having the ignorant disturb established graves with their blatant hate and denial. Of course the message is that all atrocity is tragic. It isn't a competition of atrocity. Its just one atrocity has been very effectively demarked, showcased, so that humanity can forever learn from it. I only wish for more of this.

    I'm sorry I don't know how to express this. The emotion is too pronounced for me to put words together adequately. Hopefully the post made some kind of sense.
    emphasis added...

    i hope you don't mind my adding the emphasis because this is too important a topic/thought to selectively quote or to drop context.

    like you, for me - for any thinking, rational human being - this is a very emotional topic and few people know how to adequately begin to express that emotion. i think that's because it's not just emotional, it's also painful. i think that's possibly because it goes to the very core of our being as individuals and as a species when we contemplate what we are and what we're capable of.

    coming back to the bolded comments, once again i agree with you completely when it comes to what we should be doing as individuals and as a species. where i have started to disagree is not with what we should be doing but with what we are doing. you're correct - it should be simple. we should never deny, we should always remember and our collective memory should be a testimonial. but in order for that to happen, that testimony has to be public, not private. if it is not public it dies a piece at a time as we all die. it needs to public and it needs to passed on and we continually fail at that.

    why do we fail? i don't know for a fact although i have some theories that aren't necessarily conflicting.

    firstly, it's that anti-semitism remains much more widespread that we care to admit. and, for perspective, that isn't something that the holocaust denial has brought to the table although they feed each other. anti-semitism, for whatever reason, predates the holocaust and crosses virtually all borders whether geographic or cultural.

    secondly, as noted, publicly and actively remembering and providing testimonial regarding the holocaust is emotional and painful and it's human nature to avoid pain. we simply don't do what you acknowledge - and i agree - that we need to do even though we recognize that need. how many of us actively and regularly and publicly provide that testimony we agree needs to made every day? just because the information and the proof "is out there" isn't enough. if it's not put forward regularly and active, it may as well not be there. it's simply not the sort of thing that is likely to pursued. if the holocaust isn't at least as ubiquitous as candy crush, we need to find some way for that to change and until that happens we will have continually failed to provide the testament that is needed.

    thirdly, the anti-semites and the deniers - and those prejudiced against immigrants and homosexuals and muslims etc. etc. etc. - are actively and regularly and publicly circulating their views through their own networks privately and publicly. and when they do, i'm starting to think that our failure to privately and publicly rebuke them compounds our above noted failures. when we say we don't want to engage because "it provides them with a forum or with credibility", i'm becoming less afraid of that than i am with our effectively having surrendered that bigger forum because it's too painful for us to be active enough in it to the degree that the anti-semites and deniers have no credibility when they enter it. that's how it should be but i'm no longer convinced that's the case.

    where does that leave us? i'm not sure but - regardless of the forum - i believe it leaves in a position where we need to be vocal and not silent at every opportunity knowing it will be both emotional and painful.
    Last edited by kcantor; 01-11-2018 at 12:12 PM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  28. #328

    Default

    ^But lets consider the forum we are in, and the comments I am making occurring here. (albeit the advice is general, and specific, to the forum) The thread WAS reviewed by mods. The thread was stopped anyway. much later. There was no reason to not stop it right away. Simply have Richard, an Admin, or somebody do a preamble response saying the comments in no way reflect the cite etc and with a direct referral to valid information for those interested. Close the thread immediately to further response. Done.

    Ken, you ascertain this from me but I'm perfectly capable of being acerbic, confrontive, and online even combative. Can't speak for others but I certainly didn't avoid pain or emotion in not engaging the denier in the thread. I responded in the manner I find most appropriate given the discussion of holocaust denial should not have been occurring here for the reasons I have already outlined clearly. Indeed its harder to have the conviction not to engage. It took immense willpower not to go at the stated ignorance and eviscerate it. Which would serve no pragmatic or effective purpose.

    What you mention holds more with the online ether of social media and the morass of degraded opinions and hate that exists within it on un moderated un reviewed sites. Where hate can find each other and hold hands. In that instance, still, some of the same applies. That confront and report should occur. Again debating the hate is the least effective method. Go into any online den of hate and the reasonable opinions get flamed and the hostile ones applauded. But online communities need to be vigilant in outing such sites, reporting them, and getting them closed or carefully monitored. Its a leaky dam, and the best we can do but a myriad of explosion o misinformation, of hate, of alternate reality views not only take place within, but are fostered by online community. We know that's the false news game changer. That village idiots now get to make some of the news for other idiots to glue on to. Absolutely its dangerous. Theres no easy answers. But theres no easy refutation either. But I think you didn't see my other reply in which I state the refutation or attempts at it, of people that choose misinformation over information is fairly pointless. Unfortunately the world exists in a constant state of hate finding some susceptible people and we can't eradicate that, only minimize it. Some of those people in time change, mature, drop their hateful views, others never do. This indeed is the danger fostered by an online world that Psychologists, Sociologists, health professionals warned about. That there would be myriad untold dangers of such dark enquiry. That individuals could lose themselves in dark corners of online destruction. That serial killers could find serial killers, that mass bombers could find everything they need and support communities to plan terror. The medium of largely unpoliced, unmonitored online medium allowed all this. So that we see the results.

    Finally, be vocal if you will, sure, just don't engage. One can post and preface correct information without giving debating response to the illegitimate information. Let the sources and citations be the content. The individual invested in hate does not respond to online correction. It only instills their hate further. There are some that respond to alternate information, that is cited with as little preamble as possible.

    In the thread we are referring to it starts with inevitable erosion and argument which just inflames opinions and curiously demonstrates a framework where something that shouldn't need to be debated gets debated. As philosophers have stated this offers the hateful vile an almost equal footing in the discussion. That they are not worthy of or prepared, or even want to honestly do. The Holocaust denier is not looking for information, that was a salient operative lie in that thread. They were only wanting reply so that they could feedback further hateful bile and misinformation campaigns in response to the ill conceived debate. If you look dynamically at what the OP wanted it was an excuse to spawn off myriad more hateful posts containing hateful citation and information. Unfortunately the individual was allowed and granted the forum/thread to spawn so much cited misinformation that a potential zealot could now have several other sources of illegitimate information to look at. So that its conceivable that the opposite of what you think occurred. The hateful bigot got to use this cite to cast a light on hateful citation. To even copy and post it here and to be enabled to do that through several others accepting the OP terms as if this was a debate.
    Last edited by Replacement; 02-11-2018 at 11:18 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  29. #329

    Default

    This is a bit of a disconnected reply but another way to look at it. I deal with individuals that have extensive delusional profile and thought process. Its standard de-escalation advised protocol that you NEVER debate delusion. You don't explore the individuals delusion anymore than to assess the extent of it and any potential warning signs of how the delusion could relate to harmful antecedent action. Instead you disengage by not arguing with the persons delusions, not responding to the content of them, you instead offer an alternate path with no judgement. You shape and direct the focus. You speak calmly getting the individual to focus on reality, in the moment. You adjust breathing and muscle relaxation and posture to model relaxation. Empowering them to refocus on something in the room, distract with anything, bring them to the present. Bring them to reality but not through argument. just a continued mantra of scripted lines designed to reinforce present tense, present experience. In this way mindfulness replaces delusion. How you deescalate is by REFUSING to engage the delusion. By all means you avoid accepting the delusion as if its an adjunct altered reality by microdebating it. For the delusional individual that SUSTAINS and empowers the delusion. It dangerously manifests them to further engage in those patterns of thought.

    Holocaust Denial IS Delusion. It may not be altered consciousness psychiatric symptom based delusion but it most certainly is delusional thought process. As I mentioned several times delusiom does not respond to debate, correction, argument, those only instill it, escalate it, inflame it, as the thread perfectly, and predictably, demonstrated. Most commonly the best you can do is to distract misinformation with real information but without preamble judging or mocking or tearing apart the misinformation. Doing the latter only makes the hater hate you, and that you are attempting to infect their thought process. The hater sees attempted intervention in illogical and even paranoid terms. The poster even demonstrated this perfectly in their last post and other posts (as if scripted by a puppet master higher power) in denouncing everybody that had sought to correct them. That persons framework of hate, that they left that discourse with, and stated, was the polarized hateful view that everybody else in the thread was hating, reprehensible, should be ashamed, etc. Did people not see what went on there. Its textbook standard psychic projection of a delusional/hate thought process. This is how delusion perceives and responds. Which was almost entirely predictable from the outset.
    Last edited by Replacement; 02-11-2018 at 11:01 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  30. #330

    Default

    I’ve long known, and it’s just common sense, not let, or force, someone with a complaint or grudge to state their case in a way that only hardens their resolve. As for researched positions, that’s harder because it’s hard to not over-generalize information. (As I’d said; “it’s better to be approximately right, than precisely wrong”.)

    Rereading that thread and the precursor posts to it is quite interesting.



    How to Change People’s Minds | Psychology Today Canada
    “...

    Though these are useful recommendations based on extant research regarding how human cognition works (the handbook is certainly worth a read and includes discussion of a number of interesting cognitive effects), they don’t completely address contexts wherein people simply disagree and subsequently disregard your position in favour of their own - which brings us to our second question: How can we change the minds of those who believe they have though critically, yet are still wrong?

    Changing people’s minds is not easy; and it’s even more difficult when the person you’re working with believes they have critically thought about it. The truth, it seems, is that there’s little you can do about that – it simply boils down to the person you’re trying to educate and their disposition towards critical thinking. For example, consider ...”

    “If the individual you’re trying to educate is lacking in these dispositions, it’s certainly going to be hard to change their minds. However, if they do possess these inclinations, it’s more likely that, through their willingness to think critically (as suggested, to some extent, by this checklist), that they will change their perspective to be more consistent with your, already critically considered, view.

    But, with that said, there is no easy way of changing someone’s mind. You cannot force an idea on someone. In reality, it’s quite possible that if you push too hard, the person may resent it and purposefully ‘switch off’ from conversation or even hold on stronger to their existing beliefs, perhaps out of spite. This...”

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/b...people-s-minds
    Last edited by KC; 02-11-2018 at 11:44 AM.

  31. #331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    [
    Interesting and well said. So, ok I could live with this approach.

    However, so as not to be biased against other atrocities, do the same rules apply to threads started about, say, John A MacDonald, Christopher Columbus, and so on? (As with slavery, residential schools, ...).

    Basically, ignorance of the historical record is no excuse.
    KC, I want you to consider your reply, and the reductionist bookend that Dark Magnus provided.

    Because I'm somewhat mystified you don't see it.

    For at least once in human history an atrocity was effectively remembered as testimony to victims, sufferers, generations, and so that we could work towards avoiding the past, always remembering it, NEVER denying it. To build a better humanity for all. It really is that simple.

    The sad thing is that human history has involved so much atrocity. In time, and with effort isn't it possible that other peoples would ideally be granted the peace, and modicum of closure that their people did not die in vain.

    We have an example with the holocaust where grief has resulted in the most effective display of mans inhumanity to man. A message that should not be forgot, that should only spread. For once we have an atrocity that is not allowed to be denied so that a people do not have to spend the rest of eternity having the ignorant disturb established graves with their blatant hate and denial. Of course the message is that all atrocity is tragic. It isn't a competition of atrocity. Its just one atrocity has been very effectively demarked, showcased, so that humanity can forever learn from it. I only wish for more of this.

    I'm sorry I don't know how to express this. The emotion is too pronounced for me to put words together adequately. Hopefully the post made some kind of sense.
    I agree with you again. Moreover, it opens the door to discussing other historically muted atrocities to highlight that all people’s (though “people’s” is a poor choice of words. I’m not sure what wording to use here) have committed them and otherwise good people have let them happen if not somehow facilitated them.

    On this whole denial issue, marginalization doesn’t help. The reduction of historical records or the lack of them to over-simplified polarized positions of good vs evil doesn’t serve humanity. In this specific denial case, that grossly simplified argument is already out there. Without correction and an appeal to reasoned discussion it will only spead - because there are far too many with vested interest in seeing such misinformation spread.

    Just this morning I heard the tail end of an interview on CBC radio about guns and gun control. It was interesting and educational. What was also interesting is that the man being interviewed was an outspoken racist - repeating his prior racist “I hate all...” remark during the interview.

    A lot of people would say they should never, ever be given any “pulpit” to speak. The CBC interviewer in the end thanked the man for being on the radio program.

  32. #332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    wait, communism caused the murder of 100+ million people?
    Yes, it did.

    (sounds like you need to read up on that topic)



    It wasn't (Nazi) Socialism?
    Yes, them too (if you count the deaths in the war caused by Germany, in addition to the Nazi death camps)


    Make Germany Great Again! Germany first! Sounds familar!

    ???
    The power of Communism, Nazism, and all the rest often came down to the power of authoritarianism combined with dogmatism.

    Genocides in history - Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

    Past Genocides - Armenia, Holocaust, Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur
    http://endgenocide.org/learn/past-genocides/

    List of genocides by death toll - Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_death_toll

    Communism Killed 94M in 20th Century, Feels Need to Kill Again - Hit & Run : Reason.com
    https://reason.com/blog/2013/03/13/c...n-20th-century




    Where the denialists have been winning:
    British TV viewers 'horrified' to learn truth about Irish famine | Buzz.ie

    “Viewers of Victoria have been horrified to learn that over one million Irish people died and millions more emigrated.”
    ...
    “Viewers have been praising Daisy Goodwin for highlighting an area of history that is generally whitewashed in the English education system.”

    https://www.buzz.ie/movies-tv/britis...-famine-256317
    Here, it’s even being questioned!

    Proving the Irish Famine was genocide by the British | IrishCentral.com
    Famine movie on its way but was it genocide by the British?
    Niall O'Dowd August 20, 2018
    https://www.irishcentral.com/news/ir...nocide-british
    Last edited by KC; 02-11-2018 at 12:24 PM.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •