Seventy years after Adolf Hitler’s death, how Germans see him is changing
economist.com
economist.com
That sounds 100% positive to me. Treating politics as public theater has never done anything good in the world.
The part where a young Goth woman shows Hitler how to use Google is very funny.
b.) Everyone who deviates from dogma on this topic is called a revisionist I think.
Here in Canada, we have the Internet, and with the click of a mouse I can find lots and lots of web sites explaining that the holocaust is a giant conspiracy and didn’t happen.
Nevertheless, it’s against the law for me to print them in a book and sell them in Canada. We know that people can read all that stuff, but there’s a statement being about what is and isn’t legal to publish.
It’s not so much the information that we are trying to block, it’s the signal I would be sending if I opened a bookstore and started selling copies of my book in broad daylight. The meta-signal of selling the book in public is telling people that holocaust denial is no different than any other point of view.
Canadians believe there is value in blocking the meta-signal, even if the signal itself flows somewhat freely across the country’s borders.
Not everyone agrees, of course. I imagine that most Americans regard Canadian hate-crime laws as being a horrible infringement on civil liberties, right up there with gun control and socialized medicine.
I’m not trying to convince anyone to abandon their principles and adopt the Canadian approach, I’m just pointing out that there can be a value in banning the publication of a work even if the work itself is available on the Internet.
Whether that value outweighs the other considerations in play is, of course, a public policy decision.
Saying the holocaust didn't happen isn't hateful, it's just stupid.
Explicit calls to violence should be banned, not stupidity.
Citation needed. We're not on the Wikipedia list of countries in which Holocaust denial is either implicitly or explicitly illegal. [1]
As a Canadian, I've long been proud that we have been willing to refute bad arguments rather than just imprisoning those who make them.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Laws_against_...
I happen to live in one of these countries (which name is easy to find out, continue reading...). While I certainly do not deny the Holocaust, on the contrary, I'm against these kind of laws. Should politicians decide what the historic truth is? because it can go both ways.
So in that country of mine, some politician (well I should say the president of that country) wanted to force school teachers to make pupils learn that colonialism "had positive effects on the colonized people". So where does it stop? shouldn't we let this to researchers or specialists to decide whether or not that's true? why should a some politician,who isn't an historian, be able to decide in their place?
> So where does it stop?
Your example is the government forcing the teaching of falsehoods, which is wildly different from forbidding the distribution of hate speech.
Yes. An important part of learned helplessness (playing the victim) is ignoring broadly accepted definitions.
The ability to deny ideas is the ability to deny all speech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
"In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope is a logical device in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question."
I note that this applied only to people publishing things they knew was false, not to people who sincerely believed what they were saying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Zundel
Nevertheless, my example certainly applied before 1992, and yes, it served as a signal. Public policy has changed, the Supreme Court decided that something else had greater weight. That doesn't invalidate the fact that it is still a signaling mechanism.
> I've long been proud that we have been willing to refute bad arguments rather than just imprisoning those who make them.
That's your opinion, which you've carefully crafted to sound "obviously meritorious," and you're entitled to it, but the "we" you speak of is far from universal, and the way in which you put it is not one I accept.
Robert Jan van Pelt's testimony about the architectural plans of Nazi death camps in the David Irving libel trial is pretty fascinating. There is a documentary about his research, he takes the viewer through multiple plan revisions the Nazis made for these camps and shows how they even tried to hide the camp's true purpose from the people building it. http://documentaryaddict.com/films/auschwitz-the-blueprint-o...
javascript:location.href='https://www.google.com/webhp?%23q='%20+%20encodeURIComponent(location.href)%20+%20'&btnI=I'
I mean, they don't even ban creationism!
Holocaust denial is banned because it amounts to hate speech. Creationism is dumb, but not hate speech.
Also, there is no thoughtcrime.
Obviously it's not thoughtcrime, but it's illegal to even discuss it, not only to publish books about it.
Simply put, because it is functionally identical to saying "the victims were liars on a humongous scale", with all effects that will have on an audience.
> it's illegal to even discuss it
Paragraph?
Further, you ignore the part about the effects it has on the audience. Making other people believe that jews and other holocaust victims have successfully perpetrated a lie about "their race" across decades, makes them more likely to be radicalized and thus more likely to lash out against "others". Do note how in Germany even today fire-bombings against residences of foreigners and particularly refugees occur particularly in the german regions with higher-than-average occurences of neo nazis.
Oh, lest i forget:
> it's illegal to even discuss it
Paragraph?
Ok, let's use a different example then. It's not illegal to say that Stalin was a good man than never harmed anyone, even though it's incredibly wrong (Stalin killed possibly even more people than Hitler), and equally disrespectful (assuming that at least some of the Stalin's victims or their relatives survived). Why the difference?
> Scientists advocating the theory of evolution are 100% aware that it is a theory
Wow. I wouldn't think that as someone who objects denying the holocaust would use exactly the most stupid argument used by those who deny evolution.
It's called a theory not because scientists don't think evolution is a fact, but because it's an explanation of how things happen. Evolution is a fact, to the same extent that gravity is a fact (i.e. the prediction than an apple will fall down if your release it) - it might be wrong e.g. if we live in the Matrix, but then all of the reality is "wrong". Even with gravity, you have gravity (things fall) and the theory of gravity (a longer explanation why things fall).
Edit: I'm not sure what you're asking with "Paragraph?"... Do you mean "Source?"?
Because even if there are "Stalin deniers", their numbers are not remotely large enough to have an appreciable effect.
> Evolution
I disagree, but am happy to agree to disagree. Regardless of whom of us is correct on that count, there remains the fact that denial of the theory of evolution is unlikely to successfully radicalize an appreciable amount of people.
> Edit: I'm not sure what you're asking with "Paragraph?"... Do you mean "Source?"?
Yes, which paragraph of law forbids discussion of denial of holocaust?
Just to be clear, you disagree with a fact that follows from very simple assumptions just by applying a few very simple steps of logical reasoning, yet you accept as dogmatic (i.e. authorative) truth a historical (i.e. unrepeatable and illogical) fact that you never witnessed yourself and that many people claim is false? Interesting.
Edit: Or, maybe you don't disagree that evolution is happening, just that it happened (i.e. that the current species were created by evolution)? I guess that's the other option, which would be less inconsistent with logic.
> Regardless of whom of us is correct on that count, there remains the fact that denial of the theory of evolution is unlikely to successfully radicalize an appreciable amount of people.
Well, given that holocaust denial is legal in the US, I think it's pretty safe to say that it's a fact that it's unlikely to successfully radicalize an appreciable amount of people.
> Yes, which paragraph of law forbids discussion of denial of holocaust?
I don't know, but why don't you check Wikipedia (a more raliable source) instead of relying on me (a completely unreliable, potentially lying, source)?
No, you did not understand, but i frankly do not care to discuss the finer points of the scientific process here.
> Well, given that holocaust denial is legal in the US, I think it's pretty safe to say that it's a fact that it's unlikely to successfully radicalize an appreciable amount of people.
In the US? Unlikely, i agree.
In Germany? It is still actively doing so. Source: I have german ex neo nazis among my acquaintances, by way of living in the same town; and an active german neo nazi in my extended family.
> why don't you
You made the claim. I doubt it. I leave it up to the claimant to invest the time to support it.
Fair enough. But I'm interested in that, so if you happen to know of any resources (blog posts, articles, ...) that discuss this, I'd be happy to read them.
Just look at Russia. They're glorifying Stalin now and their effect in Europe... is showing.
It's not much of an issue though in Germany / Europe, no one's really claiming that, probably since it wouldn't feed into any popular / populist narratives.
Obviously. But the latter is not illegal.
> It's not much of an issue though in Germany / Europe, no one's really claiming that, probably since it wouldn't feed into any popular / populist narratives.
This argument contains an implicit assumption that the situation would be worse if holocaust denial was legal. Is there any data to support this claim (e.g. from the time or countries where holocaust denial isn't legal)? If not, I seriously doubt this claim - right now, it appears that Germany has a serious, possibly growing, problem with neo-nazis, while it's illegal. On the other hand, plenty of European countries and the US have little problems with neo-nazis, despite it being legal (they have other racial/white-supremacist problems, but they rarely seem against Jews, unless I'm very mistaken). So it would seem that that implicit assumption completely made up.
Germany has a lot of problems with neo nazis because we still have actual nazis or direct descendants of those around and have a history directly tied to nazis. Neo nazis become such by way of being tought, as children, skewed views of history and accepting them as fact. Oftentimes they'll even promptly and disgustedly drop their affiliations when they become educated of historical realities, however many of them are living in circumstances (that's why they mostly occur in the poor parts of germany) where educating oneself is a luxury or maybe even looked down upon.
It is not an assumption, but a sad reality that even with all the social programs germany has, it would make the situation much worse if ideas like holocaust denial could be spread unchecked.
The closest I can find on Wikipedia's definition of hate speech is "...disparages ... a protected individual or group." Who is that group? Is it "people who believe the holocaust happened"? Surely belief in an arbitrary claim doesn't count for defining a "protected individual or group". Is the group Jews? How does it harm Jews?
Jews have been murdered in europe for centuries as a vent for fear and political impotence.
We've had enough. The fact that the germany that produced so much culture and science was the culprit of the last genocide in western europe is an absolute horror on so many scales.
Yes, the horrors went on elsewhere but the only way for us as a species to move ahead of our bloodspattered history is to take a stand against fear and brutalism. whitewashing history is a dangerous thing because it gives the signal that political leadership could have a way to escape history's judgement.
In essence, it's a matter of accountability that we must uphold vigorously.
And? Nobody here denies that. But that is no reason to punish denialists. Just ostracize them from society.
In general, these punishments reflect the common belief that infliction of harm without consent of the harmed is improper, and warrants either punishment or compensation or both.
And, anyway, ostracism is a punishment (historically viewed as a fairly severe one.)
So? So is calling people "rapists" (without proof or conviction), but we don't outlaw it.
> We've had enough.
I don't care. I've had enough of people who believe in God. So? Why should the state criminalize it just because I've had enough?
> In essence, it's a matter of accountability that we must uphold vigorously.
I'm all for upholding the truth. I just think we should do it by logical arguments, not by government fiat.
Yet we do: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg... http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg... http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg...
> a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origins
Can you clarify why insulting someone with "rapist" is outlawed?
In case the second link did not lead you to the correct section:
Section 186
Defamation
Whosoever asserts or disseminates a fact related to another person
which may defame him or negatively affect public opinion about him,
shall, unless this fact can be proven to be true, be liable to
imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine and, if the offence
was committed publicly or through the dissemination of written
materials (section 11(3)), to imprisonment not exceeding two years
or a fine.Falsely calling someone a rapist is unlawful and subjects the person doing it to legal consequences many places (including most jurisdictions in the US); where the burden of proof is on demonstrating the truth or falsity of the statement, whether and in what circumstances a good-faith mistake of fact will excuse the offense, etc., vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but it is certainly not a matter on which it is some widely accepted principal that people are free to make false claims without consequence.
Discussion of criminal recourse (and considerations involved in pursuing it, from prosecutors' perspective) is here (starting on p. 8): http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/the_voice_vol_3_no_1_2009.pdf
What, you're going to ban solipsism now?
The rest of your post really does not bear much more addressing other than that "holocaust denial" has a range of forms, and what you described does not fall under it.
You seem to be assuming your conclusions.
http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg... http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg... http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg...
We should probably make the same conclusion today. Since when have legally enforced official versions of history been trusted over free and open research?
Holocaust denial has been refuted again and again. The reason why it keeps surfacing is not because of academics are still arguing about the facts. The facts don't matter: holocaust denial is one of the ways in which a very dangerous ideology searches for an entry point into the mainstream.
So has been the "flat Earth" theory. Yet we don't ban it.
I think the reason it keeps resurfacing is precisely the fact it is banned - unbanning it would make it much less interesting.
Also, although you and other commenters keep repeating how "dangerous" it is, noone has been able to actually articulate as to why it's dangerous.
(Do you really need an explanation as to why Nazism is incompatible with democracy?)
(Do you really need an explanation as to why theocracy is incompatible with democracy?)
What most people will infer from such laws is the simplest conclusion: that they reflect reality, and that denying the Holocaust is what stupid people do. Most people absorb the majority of their views from what they commonly hear and see as being acceptable. If they see enough people discussing something, no matter how objectively wrong or stupid, they will put it into the category of "subjective things that might be true," and be done with it.
Ironically, many intelligent people are blind to this, because it is so far from how they operate themselves.
The First Amendment is a hill I would personally die on, but I think it's very useful to discuss with people from other countries' their beliefs and laws of freedom of expression, if only for Americans to learn that intelligent people can hold informed opinions on the rights to expression that are in some ways fundamentally incompatible with our own. I personally find it fascinating given how almost axiomatic I think of it...that's ideology for you, I guess :)
Btw, I don't think that any political discourse is necessarily incompatible with democracy, as long as it's just discourse (and not e.g. violence).
Holocaust denial is legal in many EU countries (e.g. UK). The EU is not one harmonious criminal/legal system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988%E2%80%9394_British_broadc...
Why exactly is it off-topic? Or rather, by "subthread off-topic", do you mean my comment to which you replied to, or the discussion that developed below?
It appears to me you're unfairly penalizing me, just because the opinions and arguments I express are different from the mainstream (and hence less socially acceptable). Am I wrong about that?
Other reasons I can think of:
(1) I'm commenting to much.
(2) I don't "let the issues go" (i.e. I reply to too many comments); I do that because I think most arguments people respond with are not very sensible. The only real argument is something like "(i) holocaust denial is insulting to holocaust survivors, their relatives and other Jews; (ii) it's more insulting that most other insulting things, because they have PTSD or were brought up/know people who had PTSD; (iii) some violent groups want to use holocaust denial in their propaganda", which is a whole lot of twists and turns just to make sure only holocaust (and no other kind of) denial falls under "criminal". Still, it took a long time to arrive at this argument, and many people's other arguments were rather irrelevant.
(3) There are too many up-&down-votes.
(4) These kinds of arguments look bad for HN/YC.
(5) It's hard for people to read the main thread if there's such a long subthread. But wouldn't this be solved better by having a maximum level of nesting on the main page, with separate pages for loading comments (e.g. Reddit has that).
(6) These kinds of discussions are irrelevant and boring, because we've had them before. Then I would hope someone would link to a reasonable, and more importantly complete, argument, so we wouldn't need 50 comments to arrive to something like the argument in (2).
(7) It's actually off-topic. But as I recall, my comment was just a reply to the parent comment. I can't be sure any more, because I don't know any more what the parent comment was.
I tried to write this response in the nicest tone possible; but because of the nature and context of discussion, I'm worried it will still be perceived as argumentative, or even aggressive. I'm only trying to avoid situations like these in the future; I come here to learn, and I think one of the best ways to learn is by exchanging arguments, and refining them so that you reach the core of the disagreement (i.e. so that you eliminate all the bullshit arguments that follow from logical fallacies or that people use as excuses). But it's hard to do that without what seems like a heated discussion. Maybe I should first try Steelmanning (DH7 in [1]) the arguments in the future, and in general learn to argue better [2].
[1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/85h/better_disagreement/
[2] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapo...
Dear Economist, I am closing the window.
It is of course not mentioned that initially the Nazis simply wanted the Jews to leave Germany. Hitler himself said that if some other country would accept them, he would send them on luxury cruise ships. But of course, countries like the UK or US did not want lots of Jews to immigrate to them.
This is often quoted wrong, and makes it look like Hitler wanted them to survive, just out of Germany.
Hitlers idea in the beginning was to send Jews where they could not survive, to show that they only can survive as a race when they use other races for their benefit. The plan changed several times, where to send them, and ultimatly the plan was to send them beyond Siberia after Germany would have colonized the east. With losing the war and losing the opportunity to let them die in Siberia, and an effective concentration camp system in place the plan was changed to killing all.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Évian_Conference
For example, in response to the Evian Conference in 1938, Hitler said: "I can only hope and expect that the other world, which has such deep sympathy for these criminals [Jews], will at least be generous enough to convert this sympathy into practical aid. We, on our part, are ready to put all these criminals at the disposal of these countries, for all I care, even on luxury ships."
Back then, didn't the British Empire control like 25% of this planet's land mass? Surely, there must have been some space for Jews to settle? But no, they did not allow that. And the US was a big country back then, too, but they did not allow many Jews to immigrate, either.
Seems to me that Hitler was correct when he basically pointed out that the concern of the US, UK etc. for the Jews was basically just empty talk. Please don't get me wrong here - the nazis were nasty, but the UK, US etc. back then were pretty bad, too. There have been plenty of apologies etc. from the German government over the years, but I wonder if the UK and US governments have ever apologized for their incredibly inconsiderate behavior towards the Jews back then?