Should Holocaust Deniers be Heard?
popecenter.org
popecenter.org
Raising these issues again and again, year after year, without presenting some new startling evidence to re-open the case is a lot like a convicted killer asking for a new trial without presenting any evidence of new information or errors in the original process.
We are not saying that Holocaust denial should not be heard. It already has been heard, it already has been presented for debate, and it has already been defeated soundly and without doubt by rational persons.
At a certain point you turn to the Holocaust deniers and say, "Your argument is wrong, and this has been conclusively demonstrated. Your position will not merit re-examination and re-debate until you come up with new information and new evidence, and the onus is on you to present it. Until then, your argument has already had its time, has already been heard. It does not need to be heard again."
We passed that point decades ago. So my statement is yes, Holocaust denial is an argument that should be heard and it has been heard, it does not need to be heard again.
Raising these issues semester after semester, without presenting some startling evidence to re-open the case is a lot like a convicted killer asking for a new trial without finding new evidence or errors.
At a certain point you turn to the 1+1=1 crowd and say, "your proof is wrong, and this has been conclusively demonstrated. It does not need to be heard again."
We passed that point over a hundred years ago. Thus, the argument that 1+1=1 has been heard, and does not need to be a homework assignment in any future "Intro to Proofs" classes.
See, this is the flaw in your argument. The conversation here is about exposing students to these arguments as an intellectual exercise. The relevant question to ask is not "can someone debunk holocaust deniers/debunk the proof that 1+1=1?". The relevant question is "can this class of students debunk holocaust deniers/spot the flaw in the proof that 1+1=1?"
(Details on 1+1=1. http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57110.html )
Call it an observation of human stupidity, sure. But, last I checked, we don't jail people for being stupid or saying stupid things.
edit: Something interesting I just thought of.
A lot of Islamic & Arab countries have laws in place that punish "insulting Islam". A lot of these "insults" (see Jyllands-Posten) seem to come from Europe, who advocate a huge amount of free speech. How can the laws ban one instance of hate-speech and not another? Is Satire or Humor allowed?
Again, if anyone can shed light on this matter, I'd appreciate it, but in countries like France or Germany, are there laws in place to protect against all kinds of hate-speech or just specifically Holocaust Denial?
The reason that this is punished is not stupidity. Publicly spoken words are never just an personal opininion, but have the potential to influence other people, and can lead to violent actions. In that case, the german constitution holds that the safety and dignity of the targetted people (e.g. an ethnical group) outweigh the personal freedom of an individual.
This trade-off has to be made somehow, and I would agree with the german constitution: personal freedom ends where other people get physically hurt or degraded.
Merely hurt or degraded? That is one hell of a low bar.
In addition it is a violation of paragraph 140 to publicly taunt or make fun of the belief or (religious) practices of any legal religious society. Nobody has been punished under this paragraph since the late 30.
But you are free to deny the holocaust or join a nazi group.
So by abolishing discussion you actually create what can be seen as proof of the false theory. Parents who believe this stuff tell their kids "it's a Jew cover-up" and use the censorship as proof. And since society has stopped giving the other side of the story those kids are left to believe the lie. Meaning the end result is we've made a ridiculous theory stronger by handing a whole new generation over to it.
Next thing you know there's some poor University Professor in a class full of kids who believe this ridiculousness because they've never heard the other side of the story.
Note that what really turned the public against McCarthy in his communist witch hunt was to experience first hand his vileness: "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
It would have been great if he hadn't placed all the emphasis on the Holocaust but also discussed two other well-known, widely believed denials: one scientific ("Americans didn't land on the moon") and one very recent ("9/11 was actually planned by the US government").
I will admit myself that while I don't actually believe it to be true, I often take the denial side of the "Americans landed on the moon" argument. It is always fun to challenge people on their long held beliefs and make them rationally defend their position.
I've never personally found the holocaust denying evidence to be at all worth parroting even for the benefit of theoretical discussion.
Do people actually try to defend it, or just write you off?
If someone tells me they're a holocaust denier I'm not likely to try to prove it happened. The evidence exists if they cared to spend 5s looking. I'm much more likely to just say, "OK", and then avoid at all costs, since frankly I'm a little afraid to be around people with such beliefs -- since the belief that it didn't happen is also strongly associated with "and if it did, it would have been justified".
I feel like its a good conversation starter and usually don't beat it into the dust. Ask people if they really think we could go to the moon in 1969, before we had personal computers or the internet and it at least makes them stop and think.
That's a stance a lot of intelligent people take. The result is that people who are bad at ‘critical thinking’ hear more nonsense than well thought out argument.
The view point that only one side needs to defend their position is not rational. At the same time you don't need to look at every piece of evidence. If you can't come up with 2 or 3 strong pieces of evidence to support your side and the other side can then you have lost.
However, I think it is important to elaborate on the reason why (also, the combination of overcast skies this morning, working on EC2 until late last night, and the fact that there's not much work to be done at the moment has induced a certain degree of drowsiness and desire to delve into such topics as this, rather than more C++).
Someone makes an assertion X. The question here is, how should we respond when someone claims ~X. I think the answer lies in how, if any, ~X affects our understanding of X.
If, X is an axiomatic claim, then hearing ~X may be interesting intellectually but would have no bearing on X. A well-known example, of course, is Euclid's fifth axiom. If someone declares that this is not correct, it has no effect whatsoever on Euclidean geometry. I view religious claims, such as "God exists," "God is all-benevolent", to also belong to this category.
Now, if X is a scientific statement (or theory), e.g. "no body with non-zero mass can travel faster than light in vacuum", the principle of bivalence applies (simplistically speaking), so X is either true or not. In this case, hearing ~X is not only important, but vital.
These two were the easy cases. Analysis of statements in other disciplines ("soft sciences", to use a slightly derogatory term) such as history, sociology, etc. is muddied by at least two factors: (i) There are many more factors that are hard to isolate and test in any setting, (ii) the concept of "truth" has been challenged in liberal arts as a condescending construct of dominant culture. In these cases hearing the argument for ~X may lead to a synthesis with X, whereupon you arrive at a "better", joint understanding, X'. So, again hearing ~X is important, but leads to a slightly different outcome than the scientific case (those who deny that each newer scientific theory gets closer to "truth", e.g. Kuhn, would not agree that there's a difference).
My totally subjective view is that, although all three are historic statements, "Americans landed on the moon" should be analyzed by the scientific approach Moon landing is a well-defined event and there are few factors to take into consideration that would make its detection difficult.
"US government was behind 9/11" is on the other end of the spectrum. The assertion is unbelievable (in fact, I find it ridiculous) but the many complexities of the situation and definition of terms (e.g. do you think US's activities in the Middle East precipitated the events, does that count as "was behind"?) would make one want to engage with proponents of these views, just to see if any important facet of the whole set of complex events is missed. I might learn and advance my understanding of the event from such discussions. (Sadly, this almost never happens, generally such people are politically motivated ideologues who parrot useless propagandist nuggets of falsehoods).
The interesting question is: where to place the Holocaust denial in this spectrum? Personally, I put it much closer to the moon landing argument than the 9/11 one.
This, however, by no means be the basis of making it illegal to voice such opinions, as it is in some European countries or censure them. My motto is simple: Everything should be discussable and analyzable, there should be no intellectual taboos whatsoever in a modern society.
- "Yes allow it a voice" doesn't define what form that voice takes (taught as an alternative, and example of denial, etc.)
- Holocaust denier is a broad term that covers those who outright deny anyone died to those who question things like the scale, or the culprits/responsibility, or other facts.
- Some Holocaust denial is simply anti-Semitism in a new package, some of it is rather more genuine questioning of history
And then throw in the fact that overwhelming public opinion is that the holocaust did happen largely as recorded in mainstream history books and you have a situation where "Yes" isn't a very meaningful answer.
I guess that is the point of the paper; to reach that conclusion critically.
I wonder how much your response is born out of critical thinking, and how much it is born out of an ideal that people should not have their voices repressed just because they hold a view that is diametrically opposed to the mainstream. And if the latter is true (I don't wish to make assumptions :)) I wonder whether you would write an unequivocal yes after taking this course, it being apparently designed to address such attitude.
As I read it, the point of this post is to say "students are useless at critical thinking until taught it, and the way I do that is to introduce them to the idea of holocaust denial and force them to make their own critical assessment". Extending that to a general idea of teaching holocaust denial without the accompanying tutoring in critical thinking is another consideration entirely :)
It's an interesting debate for sure.
At what point do we say, that point of view has so little evidence that hearing it is a waste of time, given time is a limited resource?
Actually, I think studies purporting to prove psychic abilities are real is something that students should spend time on. Remember this article?
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2068105
I skimmed the study in question. There are no obvious methodological flaws, and by the standards of psychological publishing, it was worthy of publication. It's my opinion that ALL students of psychology should read it critically, and understand why it doesn't prove that psychic abilities are real. (Then they should apply that same skepticism to the rest of psychology research.) It's a great exercise, just like doing easy integrals, or spotting flaws in proofs that 1 == 2.
I do agree that we should study how poor science is done. But there's a difference between studying poor science, and actually spending time trying to figure out how one might actually be the next Airbender.
Lack of discussion is never a good sign.
I would have to say that Holocaust deniers should be heard, and measured based on their arguments. To shut these people out before their case is heard is (to me) completely irrational. I might not like such people, but if these people can present a rational argument that challenges my view of events, then I've gained something. Either my view holds up on the basis of rational debate and my view is reinforced, or I'm forced to question it by a greater logic. To remove the voice of holocaust deniers is to remove that opportunity.
One of the things I would probably emphasize if I were writing such a essay is that there should be no automatic process of exclusion but also no automatic process of inclusion. Evidence matters and if deniers don’t have it their views and voices have no place in classes.
I believe Holocaust Denial is officially a crime punishable by jail in many places in Europe; was just wondering if the laws there had any similar stances on other "free-speech" issues?
I put in my dues exchanging emails (over a period of months) about biology with a white supremacist. He was a very bright guy just starting a law career, and he didn't reveal his ideas to many people. I think he was impressed that I was able to provide point-by-point responses to the claims he made about human evolution. He was very well read in racist literature, especially the older stuff from a time when more sophisticated people were still openly taking the position that non-white races were biologically inferior.
He was under the impression that a lot of the points from those old books were still unaddressed by "mainstream" biology, and the fact that I was able to provide him with straightforward answers and pointers to further reading discredited a lot of his current sources. I don't think I cured him of his racism, but I did convince him that biologists weren't as stupid or brainwashed as he thought they were, and that his sources of information did not stand up to modern ideas, because they were obsolete in some cases and simply ignorant in others. His tendency to believe in the superiority of white people remained, but I destroyed his belief that the issue had already been scientifically settled and was being ignored or suppressed by current biologists.
Addressing the issues honestly is the only way to make progress. It's sad that much of what is written about untouchable political issues is written to gratify people who are eager to agree with the author and just need some authoritative reassurance. "The Mismeasure of Man" is an egregious example. If it included white supremacists (or just people who learned towards believing in racial inequality) in its target audience, if it addressed itself to those people with an intent to persuade them, it would have been a lot more useful. Of course, it would not have won accolades -- it would have creeped people out, because people do not want to see those ideas taken seriously. What they want, and what "The Mismeasure of Man" gave them, is reassurance that those ideas have been conclusively dealt with and can be ignored. But that doesn't actually accomplish anything except providing some peace of mind to non-racists. The goal should have been to shift the ideas of people who are racist.
Wow, if I don't believe in the 'Holocaust', I'm not just an antisemitic, I'm also stupid.
> If the mountains of evidence (records, photos, films, testimony, artifacts) which converge to support the currently accepted interpretation are not sufficient grounds for belief in its reality, then what would be sufficient?
Since people who dare say that they have doubts about the 'Holocaust' are instantly labelled as antisemitic, I doubt that we will ever see evidence that does not support the 'Holocaust'.
What baffles me about this 'Holocaust' story is that it defies logic:
The Germans rounded up hundred thousands of Jewish people and killed them, while fighting both the Russians and the USA, just because they were evil.
You can conjure up mountains of evidence, but it still has plotholes.
Also in order to even begin understanding such a complex thing we require continuity. Why would the Germans do such a thing?
Example:
A killed B.
We should convict A.
But wait:
A killed B, because B wanted to murder A's wife C.
It's not the same.
You may have evidence that A killed B, but that's still not the full story.
So my conclusion is: the 'Holocaust' is not something you can easily prove or disprove of, it's too complex, we will never know what really happened because it's impossible to question the 'Holocaust', without being labelled as an antisemitic.
Hearing implies actually entertaining their absurd and ridiculous claims that have been repeatedly proven false.
I neither deny nor confirm the existence of this so called 'Holocaust' because I wasn't there when it happened. And we all know history is written by the winners. I have witnessed first hand how much lies are contained within those history books, that's why I simply don't care and don't believe anything they say.
Also a lot of people died for stupid reasons not just the jews, I don't know what makes them more special than anybody else.
Downvoters: please elaborate before just downvoting because I hurt your beliefs.
Like ad hominems?
- 9/11 truthers
- religious cultists
- UFO abductees
No, of course not. I have no reason to believe that, say, subjects who report having contact with 'entities' after receiving cranial electromagnetic stimulation in controlled laboratory settings are malicious:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nN3ggRgY7Ac
Nor does it make any sense to claim that anyone who wants an intellectually honest investigation into 9/11 is a deceiver. That's just ridiculous 1984-style propaganda.
These 'groups' are just a loose collection of people who have little or nothing in common. Are some of these folks malicious or deceivers? Of course. But putting them all in the same box is just willful intellectual dishonesty.
1 is easy - a 'group' is a collection or subset of a larger whole of people, which all of the named categories are. This is a simple semantic issue, completely uninteresting, but I still don't understand what point you're trying to make by claiming these people are not 'groups', apart from the non sequitur in your first sentence (when I say 'are these not groups', you say 'I have no reason to believe that they are malicious'). Of course they're not 'organized' as in that they have no central authority and there is strong disagreement about many things between them, but they're still 'groups'. But again this is a wholly uninteresting question and I'm not sure why you brought it up in the first place.
Then nr 2, the question was 'are they malicious or unhinged deceivers'. So that means they're either 'malicious deceivers' or 'unhinged deceivers'. Many (most?) are not 'malicious', but anyone who claims 9/11 was an inside job by the US government is 'unhinged'. (9/11 truthers are not 'anyone who wants an intellectually honest investigation into 9/11', they're whack jobs for whom nothing will ever convince them that they're wrong; much like the holocaust deniers in the OP.)
They're also 'deceivers' because they all operate to convince as many people as they can about their loony ideas, using all means possible. Repeatedly and without willingness to engage in actual, rational debate repeating claims of being 'oppressed', 'repressed' or 'silenced by the majority' is just the beginning of this deceitfulness.
They may be wrong, but that is very, very, very far from malicious.
So using his critical thinking skills he arrived at the accepted conclusions of mainstream society? What tremendous value he offers! He could have just told people to watch television.