sickening....

[SLVRSR4]

The only thing that really proves the holocaust was the gas bills. I'm finding it super difficult to not troll this thread.

 

[BillyZaned]

The only thing that really proves the holocaust was the gas bills. I'm finding it super difficult to not troll this thread.

lol...

I did make a really off-colored joke the other day to my wife about her dad.......

I REALLY AM SORRY IF THIS OFFENDS ANYONE...

But, he wanted us to come over for dinner, he was making home made pizzas....

I said "Wow, the guy sure loves to throw stuff in the oven all the time, did he learn that in Nazi Youth camp?"

 

[Ghostvirus]

Funny enough. One of the reasons why pizza is in the USA is because of WWII.

 

[Ahura Mazda]

I have had dinners with people who have denied the holocaust. The dinners never ended well.

I apologise to you and your wife, but your father in law is either an ignorant idiot or a racist idiot. I am not jewish but even I find this offensive. To deny a reality in history is the epitomy of idiocy.

Good luck to you.

 

[LEX]

I'm none too surprised. It's amazing how some people can block out facts that contradict their beliefs, even if they're shouted or flashed in obnoxiously colored neon lights at their faces. It's called sheer stubbornness, which is more pathetic than anything, really, so instead of wasting oxygen dealing with their kind, go scuba-diving or something.

For the record, I'm speaking in the general. You, on the other hand, have to deal with them on a regular basis, so I hope you come to some kind of a peaceful compromise before you both blow your tops off. Agree to disagree.

 

[RdeemingRainbow]

Do you think that people who believe that the holocaust is a propaganda cover up are in some way a threat to the actual historical data that we have? I dare say that they are not a threat.

I think Austria's move toward neo-Nazis is proof that it's a threat. Hitler came to power, and the modern-day neo-Nazis came to power, because people thought they weren't serious threats.

What is the bset way to combat this? I don't feel like education is necessarily going to do anything. If someone believes in spite of the OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary ... I doubt very seriously that they will be convinced otherwise.

Most people aren't necessarily aware of the evidence and documentation. You actually have to LOOK for the details and evidence. Most people's exposure to the events is through what they hear in school and see in pop-culture.

People denying the Holocaust don't always ACTUALLY believe what they're saying. Sometimes they tell themselves it didn't happen so they can justify their other beliefs to themselves. If you disprove those lies, even if the person acts like they don't believe you, you've made it harder for them to pretend they don't believe it and made it harder for them to justify it to themselves.

So what can you do? Tell them that they're wrong and cause strife and unnecessary fighting that could cause a rift between families? To what end? At the end most likely they will still believe in spite of the OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary that the holocaust was all fake.

When someone denies the Holocaust, THEY are the ones who are causing strife. Why should one side get to call Hitler a great leader and deny the Holocaust, but the other side is expected to keep silent in order to keep the peace? That's not rational.

Furthermore I'm not in the business of telling people what they should or shouldn't believe irrespective of whether or not they are right or wrong or even factually accurate. I trust that facts will speak for themselves in these matters and people will not be able to change that.

Facts don't speak for themselves. PEOPLE speak for facts. Truth needs us to speak for it. If we go around refusing to tell other people they're being duped, how on Earth will the truth ever be told in the first place? Liars depend on other people believing them and on still other people not standing up against the lies.

If we start to become more controlling about what people think or believe about history we run the risk of controlling what people think. Then we're one step closer to Hitler.

You aren't being "controlling" by telling a person they are falling for a lie. We aren't talking about passing laws that restrict what anyone says, so there's nothing here that evokes Nazism.

 

[RdeemingRainbow]

" To be honest I think Hitler could have been a great leader. He just took a very, very, very, very, wrong turn."
AND
"The thing is that Hitler was a great leader. One of history's best in fact. The only difference is that you, and mostly anyone with a heart, doesn't agree with what he did.."

Hitler wasn't a great leader. He led his country to destruction. He destroyed its culture and arts, he turned its basic education backward in science and literature, he destroyed the lives of a huge percentage of its citizens, he had to lie about his own actions and beliefs and agenda to get his people to support him, he ignored the advice of his military leadership (leading to their crushing military defeats), he caused wages to drop and employment opportunities to become stifled (yes, more people had jobs, but they were worse jobs with less pay and you couldn't advance anymore or get new and better employment), he created a political structure that crushed intellectualism and advancement and change in favor of "yes" men and less-educated brainwashed parrots, etc.

This was all after his repeated political failures and imprisonment due to his comical attempt at a coup in Austria, remember. And Hitler's place as the strongest leader among the fascists came after he used ignorant street thugs to beat down, kill, threaten, and otherwise remove anyone who represented a stronger or better potential leader for the ideology.

I am always stunned that people look at Hitler and think of him as a genius or a great leader, despite all of the evidence to the contrary. It's not hard to get your agenda accomplished in a dictatorship, it doesn't require great intellect and leadership, it merely requires ruthlessness and blind obedience. Hitler turned Germany backward, he ruined the nation and caused an absolute downfall of Germany. People followed him because he told them what they wanted to hear. It doesn't take a genius or a great leader to manipulate and lie to people, it just takes opportunism.

Even the early military successes of Germany were against weak and tiny nations, were successful only because Hitler could see the glaringly obvious fact that the only nations capable of resisting his agenda -- France, Britain, and the Soviet Union -- were not willing to enter into military conflict so soon after WWI.

When Hitler marched a tiny little group of soldiers into the Rhineland in 1936, France could've sent a token force to drive them out and humiliate Hitler, which would've brought a quick end to his government. Or later, France and the UK could've agreed to the Soviet request for a strong alliance to stop Hitler from taking over the smaller nations around Germany. Over and over, Hitler took huge risks and just betted that the other nations would remain too wishy-washy to stand up to him. Had at any of those times the other nations used their then-superior military might and political strength to stop Hitler, it would've been easy to do and he would've likely lost the support of the military and his public.

It didn't take a genius to see that France and the UK had no stomach for a military confrontation. And Hitler wasn't the one who came up with the military strategies that allowed the German army to quickly crush smaller nations, that was due to his generals and military leaders -- often after Hitler initially opposed their ideas and suggested methods. When Hitler himself made major military decisions, things almost always went horribly wrong, in fact.

It also doesn't take a genius to figure out how to use hatred and blame to appeal to a demoralized population in the midst of economic depression and feeling weak and humiliated by the previous war. Hitler didn't come up with most of the ideas and concepts he strung together as his ideology. Nor did he really come up with some brilliant economic recovery program -- Hitler was in fact very uninterested in economics, and only cared that the nation have enough money to let him build up a military so he could play war. The economic recovery was pretty much achieved through printing money and forcing businesses to accept government demands and the currency "reforms" the Nazis instituted. They got a ton of foreign investment, due to the initially overwhelmingly positive capitalist response to fascism (FDR even called Mussolini a "fine Italian gentleman").

Hitler was not a great leader at all. He was a very bad leader, in fact, and his nation paid dearly for his severe limitations as a leader.

 

[Majic Walrus]

I think Austria's move toward neo-Nazis is proof that it's a threat. Hitler came to power, and the modern-day neo-Nazis came to power, because people thought they weren't serious threats.

This simply isn't true. Hitler and the Modern-Day Neo-Nazis have not come to power based on an incorrect belief about the holocaust. They came about based on a very real bigotry.

Most people aren't necessarily aware of the evidence and documentation. You actually have to LOOK for the details and evidence. Most people's exposure to the events is through what they hear in school and see in pop-culture.

People denying the Holocaust don't always ACTUALLY believe what they're saying. Sometimes they tell themselves it didn't happen so they can justify their other beliefs to themselves. If you disprove those lies, even if the person acts like they don't believe you, you've made it harder for them to pretend they don't believe it and made it harder for them to justify it to themselves.


When someone denies the Holocaust, THEY are the ones who are causing strife. Why should one side get to call Hitler a great leader and deny the Holocaust, but the other side is expected to keep silent in order to keep the peace? That's not rational.

It is irrational to believe something that is incorrect. It is also irrational to add to and fuel someone's incorrect belief even just by acknowledging it. In my mind it is so infinitely silly that there's no point in even discussing it much really. There's nothing to discuss and it's not hard to believe it happened.

You seem to think that it "just isn't fair", well it's not fair that it happened but whether or not someone believes that is irrelevant.

Facts don't speak for themselves. PEOPLE speak for facts. Truth needs us to speak for it. If we go around refusing to tell other people they're being duped, how on Earth will the truth ever be told in the first place? Liars depend on other people believing them and on still other people not standing up against the lies.

You aren't being "controlling" by telling a person they are falling for a lie. We aren't talking about passing laws that restrict what anyone says, so there's nothing here that evokes Nazism.

So what then? We just tell all the people who believe differently than us that they are wrong? I'm sure that won't evoke any hatred.

Hitler wasn't a great leader. He led his country to destruction. He destroyed its culture and arts, he turned its basic education backward in science and literature, he destroyed the lives of a huge percentage of its citizens, he had to lie about his own actions and beliefs and agenda to get his people to support him, he ignored the advice of his military leadership (leading to their crushing military defeats), he caused wages to drop and employment opportunities to become stifled (yes, more people had jobs, but they were worse jobs with less pay and you couldn't advance anymore or get new and better employment), he created a political structure that crushed intellectualism and advancement and change in favor of "yes" men and less-educated brainwashed parrots, etc.

This was all after his repeated political failures and imprisonment due to his comical attempt at a coup in Austria, remember. And Hitler's place as the strongest leader among the fascists came after he used ignorant street thugs to beat down, kill, threaten, and otherwise remove anyone who represented a stronger or better potential leader for the ideology.

I am always stunned that people look at Hitler and think of him as a genius or a great leader, despite all of the evidence to the contrary. It's not hard to get your agenda accomplished in a dictatorship, it doesn't require great intellect and leadership, it merely requires ruthlessness and blind obedience. Hitler turned Germany backward, he ruined the nation and caused an absolute downfall of Germany. People followed him because he told them what they wanted to hear. It doesn't take a genius or a great leader to manipulate and lie to people, it just takes opportunism.

Even the early military successes of Germany were against weak and tiny nations, were successful only because Hitler could see the glaringly obvious fact that the only nations capable of resisting his agenda -- France, Britain, and the Soviet Union -- were not willing to enter into military conflict so soon after WWI.

When Hitler marched a tiny little group of soldiers into the Rhineland in 1936, France could've sent a token force to drive them out and humiliate Hitler, which would've brought a quick end to his government. Or later, France and the UK could've agreed to the Soviet request for a strong alliance to stop Hitler from taking over the smaller nations around Germany. Over and over, Hitler took huge risks and just betted that the other nations would remain too wishy-washy to stand up to him. Had at any of those times the other nations used their then-superior military might and political strength to stop Hitler, it would've been easy to do and he would've likely lost the support of the military and his public.

It didn't take a genius to see that France and the UK had no stomach for a military confrontation. And Hitler wasn't the one who came up with the military strategies that allowed the German army to quickly crush smaller nations, that was due to his generals and military leaders -- often after Hitler initially opposed their ideas and suggested methods. When Hitler himself made major military decisions, things almost always went horribly wrong, in fact.

It also doesn't take a genius to figure out how to use hatred and blame to appeal to a demoralized population in the midst of economic depression and feeling weak and humiliated by the previous war. Hitler didn't come up with most of the ideas and concepts he strung together as his ideology. Nor did he really come up with some brilliant economic recovery program -- Hitler was in fact very uninterested in economics, and only cared that the nation have enough money to let him build up a military so he could play war. The economic recovery was pretty much achieved through printing money and forcing businesses to accept government demands and the currency "reforms" the Nazis instituted. They got a ton of foreign investment, due to the initially overwhelmingly positive capitalist response to fascism (FDR even called Mussolini a "fine Italian gentleman").

Hitler was not a great leader at all. He was a very bad leader, in fact, and his nation paid dearly for his severe limitations as a leader.

This depends entirely on your definition of the word "Great" so could you please define that first?

 

[RdeemingRainbow]

This simply isn't true. Hitler and the Modern-Day Neo-Nazis have not come to power based on an incorrect belief about the holocaust. They came about based on a very real bigotry.

The fact of socialist and communist parties and groups reaching a mutual decision that the Nazis were not the most important threat is historical fact, and they decided to focus energies on ending the Republic first. They felt the Nazis, even if they actually won elections, would not last long and would be easy to get rid of. The conservative parties that aligned with the Nazis likewise stated their belief that the Nazis were a means to an ends and didn't see them as a true threat.

I didn't say the Nazis came to power denying the Holocaust, obviously, or that the neo-Nazis did so. I said that their rise to power was made possible by the inaction of other people and parties and organizations who repeatedly had the chance to stop them early-on but didn't think they were a real danger and thus ignored them or didn't take them seriously. And that's a matter or historical record.

It is irrational to believe something that is incorrect. It is also irrational to add to and fuel someone's incorrect belief even just by acknowledging it. In my mind it is so infinitely silly that there's no point in even discussing it much really. There's nothing to discuss and it's not hard to believe it happened.

It's irrational to think that confronting falsehoods and lies is fueling the ignorance. You may find it "infinitely silly", but you perhaps don't live in one of the nations where Holocaust denial has spread and the number of people buying into the claims are growing. It is incorrect to think that false information and lies should not be called falsehoods and lies, so if it is also irrational to believe something that is incorrect then it is irrational to believe that falsehoods and lies should not be confronted or that they don't spread if they are not corrected.

You seem to think that it "just isn't fair", well it's not fair that it happened but whether or not someone believes that is irrelevant.

No, I don't just think it "just isn't fair". I think that all I have to do is turn on the news and see plenty of evidence that false information and lies and distortions spread quickly and easily, especially when they are not confronted and when the truth isn't defended. Someone believing a lie isn't "irrelevant", it's potentially harmful. There are things someone can believe that are not likely to have any important impact on their lives or on society, and then there are things people can believe and spread that are very harmful to society.

Do you think neo-Nazis just wake up one day and decide to be neo-Nazis? Do you think Holocaust deniers just decide over breakfast to stop believing in it? They are exposed to people who spread information and lies that attract people into those beliefs and ideologies, and those people are more inclined to believe and adhere to such lies the longer they remain unexposed to the truth. For those of us who've been confronted first-hand with neo-Nazi organizations and the violence they do to communities, it's not at all "irrelevant" if someone believes all of the lies and propaganda of that sort.

So what then? We just tell all the people who believe differently than us that they are wrong? I'm sure that won't evoke any hatred.

Yes, because rationally saying "Nazi propaganda that entices people to believe lies about the Holocaust is dangerous, and thus every single thing anyone disagrees with us about should be treated like it's Nazi propaganda spreading through society... sheesh. Perspective, please.

There's a difference between saying "someone espousing Nazi rhetoric and lies about the past should be told they are wrong, especially when the person has overtly said he doesn't think there's evidence to prove the Holocaust", and saying we should treat everything that way. The idea that it's impossible to draw a line or set boundaries, and thus confronting important lies that spread through society will lead us all into a totalitarian revival of Hitler, is irrational. (You DID make the comparison to it leading to Hitler in a previous post, remember)

This depends entirely on your definition of the word "Great" so could you please define that first?

Well, since I responded to someone else using the term first, it'd make more sense for them to define the word as they meant it. I actually don't think he meant "great" in the more casual-use definition of the word, though, and I think he meant it more in terms of by comparison to how we apply the word "great" to other leaders. It was probably sort of an ironic use of the term, in other words, and maybe with an eye toward a more generic sense of having a big impact in history.

But I saw other reference to Hitler as "great" or potentially "great", so I was trying to respond to a more broad definition of the usage of the word, to note that in fact Hitler ruined his nation and led it to utter defeat.

So I'd say that, for the context of my response, I used "Great" in the common-usage sense that implies a sort of honor and inherent high quality -- the sort of things you might say if you wanted to say that a person has done well at being in charge of things, basically.

 

[RdeemingRainbow]

In this circumstance, consider that NOT saying anything means that on occasion the father-in-law will make more references to Hitler and the Holocaust at family gatherings, causing tension and upset in some attendees. I see no reason to claim that presenting him with the facts about physical evidence, admissions by Nazis that the Holocaust indeed happened, the mass graves, etc would somehow be MORE problematic than everyone having to put up with pro-Hitler commentary and Holocaust denial.

Just as Billy could remain silent and not saying anything to "keep the peace", his father-in-law could remain silent as well (he has to know that some people are less than thrilled with his pronouncements). Why is Billy under more pressure to keep silent and let the other guy say HIS piece? Why is the RATIONAL person who is factually CORRECT the one who would get accused (under the logic being stated for remaining silent) of causing distress? Why is Billy or someone else being offended by pro-Hitler commentary less important than the father-in-law being offended at being told he's wrong?

It's illogical and irrational.

 

[Majic Walrus]

The fact of socialist and communist parties and groups reaching a mutual decision that the Nazis were not the most important threat is historical fact, and they decided to focus energies on ending the Republic first. They felt the Nazis, even if they actually won elections, would not last long and would be easy to get rid of. The conservative parties that aligned with the Nazis likewise stated their belief that the Nazis were a means to an ends and didn't see them as a true threat.

Which has nothing to do with the holocaust as this occurred before the holocaust.

I didn't say the Nazis came to power denying the Holocaust, obviously, or that the neo-Nazis did so. I said that their rise to power was made possible by the inaction of other people and parties and organizations who repeatedly had the chance to stop them early-on but didn't think they were a real danger and thus ignored them or didn't take them seriously. And that's a matter or historical record.

Again, this has nothing to do with whether or not people believe in that the holocaust was all propaganda. You're attempting to claim that neo-Nazis equate to "people who don't believe in the holocaust" but that isn't true.

It's irrational to think that confronting falsehoods and lies is fueling the ignorance. You may find it "infinitely silly", but you perhaps don't live in one of the nations where Holocaust denial has spread and the number of people buying into the claims are growing. It is incorrect to think that false information and lies should not be called falsehoods and lies, so if it is also irrational to believe something that is incorrect then it is irrational to believe that falsehoods and lies should not be confronted or that they don't spread if they are not corrected.

I do not believe that falsehoods and lies spread uncontrollably simply for no reason whatsoever. People do not believe that the holocaust was a fake because someone told them to believe that or because they are uniformed. People believe that the holocaust was a fake because they are BIGOTS.

Do not argue back and forth with someone about the validity of the holocaust. The problem is not a lack of information the problem is bigotry. Attack bigotry instead.

No, I don't just think it "just isn't fair". I think that all I have to do is turn on the news and see plenty of evidence that false information and lies and distortions spread quickly and easily, especially when they are not confronted and when the truth isn't defended. Someone believing a lie isn't "irrelevant", it's potentially harmful. There are things someone can believe that are not likely to have any important impact on their lives or on society, and then there are things people can believe and spread that are very harmful to society.

There is not a comparison between holocaust deniers and popular media. The holocaust is a heavily documented and well-supported event that has been confirmed for decades and decades. Popular news media simply isn't a 60 year old event and there's no comparison.

And I have no problem with you being right or even making sure that when the topic comes up you clarify that. However I think you are missing the issue and blowing something out of proportion. You're combating holocaust deniers when you seem to be upset with bigots.

Do you think neo-Nazis just wake up one day and decide to be neo-Nazis? Do you think Holocaust deniers just decide over breakfast to stop believing in it? They are exposed to people who spread information and lies that attract people into those beliefs and ideologies, and those people are more inclined to believe and adhere to such lies the longer they remain unexposed to the truth. For those of us who've been confronted first-hand with neo-Nazi organizations and the violence they do to communities, it's not at all "irrelevant" if someone believes all of the lies and propaganda of that sort.

Chicken before the egg argument. You're positing that holocaust denial precedes somehow neo-Nazism. This simply isn't the case. Neo-Nazis are Neo-Nazis because of hatred and bigotry not because someone told them that the holocaust wasn't real.

Let's look at the OPs wife. She apparently is not a Neo-Nazi even though it's clear that her family's belief is that the holocaust didn't happen. She is not a Neo-Nazi beause she is not full of hatred and bigotry.

Yes, because rationally saying "Nazi propaganda that entices people to believe lies about the Holocaust is dangerous, and thus every single thing anyone disagrees with us about should be treated like it's Nazi propaganda spreading through society... sheesh. Perspective, please.

Really? You're telling me to have perspective?

There's a difference between saying "someone espousing Nazi rhetoric and lies about the past should be told they are wrong, especially when the person has overtly said he doesn't think there's evidence to prove the Holocaust", and saying we should treat everything that way. The idea that it's impossible to draw a line or set boundaries, and thus confronting important lies that spread through society will lead us all into a totalitarian revival of Hitler, is irrational. (You DID make the comparison to it leading to Hitler in a previous post, remember)

Again I'm not saying that it's somehow wrong to call people on ********. Calling people on ******** is one thing... but this is not what the situation is. The situation is not "people" the situation is father-in-law. Bringing up this issue between TWO total and complete strangers has already caused us to have a healthy argument and we both AGREE that the holocaust DID happen.

Can you imagine the conversation that would occur between a son and father-in-law about this when the two disagreed. It would not be worth the problems that would happen afterwards. Sometimes you have to let people be *******s to make your life easier. That's all I'm saying.

Well, since I responded to someone else using the term first, it'd make more sense for them to define the word as they meant it. I actually don't think he meant "great" in the more casual-use definition of the word, though, and I think he meant it more in terms of by comparison to how we apply the word "great" to other leaders. It was probably sort of an ironic use of the term, in other words, and maybe with an eye toward a more generic sense of having a big impact in history.

But I saw other reference to Hitler as "great" or potentially "great", so I was trying to respond to a more broad definition of the usage of the word, to note that in fact Hitler ruined his nation and led it to utter defeat.

So I'd say that, for the context of my response, I used "Great" in the common-usage sense that implies a sort of honor and inherent high quality -- the sort of things you might say if you wanted to say that a person has done well at being in charge of things, basically.

I don't think that your usage is necessarily common at all or at least not more common than others.

For instance. Hitler was entirely charismatic and managed to gain control of an entire nation and not only become it's leader but it's supreme leader. He managed to gain support of his people and create an entire movement that exists even today in things like Neo-Nazis.

That is a BIG achievement. That is LOTS of power. That is an example of a leader with GREAT power and GREAT achievements.

Obviously he was not a "good" person and not nearly successful as he'd hoped, but that doesn't mean that he can't fit the definition of great.

In this circumstance, consider that NOT saying anything means that on occasion the father-in-law will make more references to Hitler and the Holocaust at family gatherings, causing tension and upset in some attendees. I see no reason to claim that presenting him with the facts about physical evidence, admissions by Nazis that the Holocaust indeed happened, the mass graves, etc would somehow be MORE problematic than everyone having to put up with pro-Hitler commentary and Holocaust denial.

Really?

You've never had a father-in-law have you?

Just as Billy could remain silent and not saying anything to "keep the peace", his father-in-law could remain silent as well (he has to know that some people are less than thrilled with his pronouncements). Why is Billy under more pressure to keep silent and let the other guy say HIS piece? Why is the RATIONAL person who is factually CORRECT the one who would get accused (under the logic being stated for remaining silent) of causing distress? Why is Billy or someone else being offended by pro-Hitler commentary less important than the father-in-law being offended at being told he's wrong?

It's illogical and irrational.

Because in this case the RATIONAL and CORRECT person is the SON-in-law. He has to live for the rest of his life with the IRRATIONAL and INCORRECT person in his life. He can either stand up and say something about it and risk the possibility of pissing that person off, not making a difference anyway, and spending the rest of his life with an IRRATIONAL and INCORRECT ******* or he can ignore something that while being offensive is probably more about ignorance and bigotry than neo-Nazism and spend the rest of his life with an IRRATIONAL and INCORRECT guy.

 

[RdeemingRainbow]

Which has nothing to do with the holocaust as this occurred before the holocaust.

At what point did you get confused about relevance here? Go back and look at the start of this discussion, and why the question of not taking the danger of neo-Nazis and their lies seriously enough to spend time fighting them and refuting their lies is relevant to the issue of this thread.

Again, this has nothing to do with whether or not people believe in that the holocaust was all propaganda. You're attempting to claim that neo-Nazis equate to "people who don't believe in the holocaust" but that isn't true.

Wrong. Again. You've just apparently gotten painfully confused about what the points are and why they came up. Please point to the quote where I claimed Holocaust denial was solely the territory of literal neo-Nazis. You are just woefully misunderstanding the points and what they were relevant to and responding to.

I do not believe that falsehoods and lies spread uncontrollably simply for no reason whatsoever. People do not believe that the holocaust was a fake because someone told them to believe that or because they are uniformed. People believe that the holocaust was a fake because they are BIGOTS.

Wait, so you are claiming that I'm supposedly wrong for "claiming" (although I didn't actually claim this, and it's your misunderstanding, but for the sake of making this point...) that denying the Holocaust equates to neo-Nazis, but you can jump in and say that people who deny the Holocaust are all "BIGOTS"? Try consistency. It's fun.

Now, please point to the quote where I say or even imply that belief in lies spreads for "no reason whatsoever". You think that my saying exposure to and repetition of lies until they seep into mainstream dialogue unchallenged is the same as "no reason whatsoever"? You have a very odd definition of the term, then.

And the implication of your disputing my above claim, and instead saying belief in lies stems from pre-existing inherent bias from the outset, is that there is no source of bigotry beyond it just appearing for "no reason whatsoever". Does a person just randomly choose to start having a prejudice? They aren't exposed to lies and opinions and propaganda or other things from other bigots first, or aren't exposed to events and then subsequently exposed to lies and claims and things that blame those events on this or that group of people?

And are you claiming that a person with little education and knowledge about the Holocaust, who is somewhere that exposes them to repeated doses of lies and propaganda, who has that stuff reinforced perhaps by their families and other people, cannot possibly be influenced into believing the lies? That they instead are uninfluenced by any of that, and instead are a pre-existing bigot (apparently, if this theory is to be consistent, without any influence or initial causation) who just grabs the belief because it reinforces a pre-existing inherent condition?

That's not very rational. And I've not once denied that a person can't also be a bigot, or that the specific lies and propaganda and influences that lead a person to deny the Holocaust are not ALSO influences that breed bigotry. I in fact DO believe that the processes that encourage and lead to Holocaust denial also encourage and lead to bigotry. And yes, some people have already been turned into bigots long ago and so Holocaust denial fits into their existing worldview. But to suggest none of this is a result of the spread of insidious lies and propaganda, and that it isn't at all influenced or helped along by inability or refusal to confront it strongly and loudly, makes no sense.

Do not argue back and forth with someone about the validity of the holocaust. The problem is not a lack of information the problem is bigotry. Attack bigotry instead.

And you don't see that bigotry depends on ignorance and lies? You think it's possible to attack this person's bigotry, but to remain entirely silent whenever they make an assertion? You think you can -- your word -- ATTACK bigotry, but you think challenging people's lies and presenting evidence to show them they are believing a lie would be too controversial and cause too much fighting? Explain to me how you plan to "attack" bigotry while refusing to "attack" the lies and falsehoods that breed it.

The refusal to challenge the lies and provide the truth means the lies spread, and they infect other minds and help create and reinforce more bigotry. You ignore this fundamental truth -- that bigotry DEPENDS and FEEDS ON lack of information and lack of truth, both replaced with deception and manipulation -- and you'll fail miserably in any attempt to attack bigotry.

There is not a comparison between holocaust deniers and popular media. The holocaust is a heavily documented and well-supported event that has been confirmed for decades and decades. Popular news media simply isn't a 60 year old event and there's no comparison.

Good gravy. You are missing some serious points here. Are you really confused about what I am saying in the quote you replied to? Or is this meant to be funny? I'm talking about the spread of lies, that outrageous and false information is widespread even in the mainstream press, and that your claim that something that seems absurd to you shouldn't be taken seriously and couldn't actually be any threat or cause any real harm is simply a wildly false claim.

And I have no problem with you being right or even making sure that when the topic comes up you clarify that. However I think you are missing the issue and blowing something out of proportion. You're combating holocaust deniers when you seem to be upset with bigots.

No, I'm really not. I'm saying that when your father-in-law claims the Holocaust didn't happen, you should point out that it did. You think otherwise, and expanded the matter into the question of why should we confront someone who holds a false belief, and that challenging things we don't agree with or demonstrating facts to someone who lacks them could lead to Nazism. And I'm saying that's a pretty irrational position, in my opinion.

I don't think we have to make some sort of choice between either confronting Holocaust deniers OR bigotry. I think it's possible to do both, as they come up, and even both frequently if one wishes. There are entire groups dedicated to challenging and arguing against Holocaust-denying groups and speakers. And there are people who just tell their father-in-laws that it's crazy to deny the Holocaust. And there are people who fight bigotry in a lot of different ways and on a lot of issues.

Chicken before the egg argument. You're positing that holocaust denial precedes somehow neo-Nazism. This simply isn't the case. Neo-Nazis are Neo-Nazis because of hatred and bigotry not because someone told them that the holocaust wasn't real.

Okay, now I'm thinking you are just intentionally doing it. Acting like you grossly misunderstand the points or something, maybe thinking it's funny. If that's the case, it's not funny. If it's not intentional, and you really are just misunderstanding this badly, there's almost no hope of continuing a normal discussion with you about this.

But let's play the game a minute. So then you are claiming being a neo-Nazi precedes having any beliefs. Right? Someone just becomes a neo-Nazi, and then later is a bigot and stuff (which contradicts your prior arguments suggesting bigotry just pops up without cause).

It's not a "chicken and egg" argument -- having an ideology depends first on actually developing ideas and opinions that conform to an ideology. People are exposed to things that lead them to BECOME neo-Nazis. They aren't born crying "Heil Hitler" with little baby-Hitler mustaches. This is bordering on silliness.

Let's look at the OPs wife. She apparently is not a Neo-Nazi even though it's clear that her family's belief is that the holocaust didn't happen. She is not a Neo-Nazi beause she is not full of hatred and bigotry.

I don't even know what to say to you when you make statements like this. The fact that some people can be exposed to environments like that and not turn out the same way doesn't dispel the fact that some people are exposed to such things and DO turn out like that.

I mean, seriously now, where exactly DO you think bigotry comes from? That it magically springs into someone's head? Nothing happens that leads up to it? Are you actually, seriously trying to argue that exposure to lies and propaganda and hateful environments (where the lies and hate etc are expressed and encouraged) are not among the factors that lead to bigotry? I can't even believe I'm having to have this conversation.

Really? You're telling me to have perspective?

Yes. Really. I said a guy should not just ignore his father-in-law claiming the Holocaust didn't happen. I said lies like that spread and can have bad consequences, as this particular lie has for example. You disputed my advice to tell the father the truth, and you said challenging it is akin to challenging all things we disagree with and that it can lead to Hitler.

So yeah, perspective. Get some, please.

Again I'm not saying that it's somehow wrong to call people on ********. Calling people on ******** is one thing... but this is not what the situation is. The situation is not "people" the situation is father-in-law. Bringing up this issue between TWO total and complete strangers has already caused us to have a healthy argument and we both AGREE that the holocaust DID happen.

His father-in-law isn't a person? I think it's especially important to call your family on such things. And Billy isn't the one "bringing it up" -- do you think Billy just occasionally asks "So, what was it you think about the Holocaust again?" No, his father-in-law brings it up. And how exactly do you plan to "attack bigotry" if you also plan to not challenge relatives or people you know too well when they say things like "Hitler was a great guy" or "Boy those Jews are lying about the Holocaust"? You plan to both "attack" bigotry AND avoid unpleasantness if your family proclaims admiration for Nazis? Good luck with that...

Can you imagine the conversation that would occur between a son and father-in-law about this when the two disagreed. It would not be worth the problems that would happen afterwards. Sometimes you have to let people be *******s to make your life easier. That's all I'm saying.

Yes, I can imagine the conversation. Something like (after father-in-law again says "The Holocaust never happened"): "Hey, look, some testimony from Nazis admitting the Holocaust. And some photos of all those dead Jewish people. What's this? Hmm, it looks like the paperwork presented at Nuremberg, showing extermination orders, and the testimony of the Nazis admitting it's legit."

Then I can imagine the father-in-law never feeling like it's safe to assert Hitler's wonderful qualities again, and lots of family get-togethers free of Holocaust-denial. What I can imagine if the father-in-law is NOT answered is a lifetime of family gatherings wondering if he's gonna explain why the Holocaust is fake again, and how great Hitler was.

You say it's not worth the supposed problems afterwards (which I don't think will transpire anyway, the guy will just stop saying it and perhaps be a bit p.o.'ed at whomever told him there's no evidence), I say it's not worth sitting through family gatherings year after year feeling upset and angry until finally the guy says it when someone is around who REALLY goes off on him, or until Billy or his wife gets fed up and starts making excuses to avoid going over there, and the basic "problems" of having to even stifle your own feelings in favor of letting someone else vent their own.

And then there's the whole "basically, if you are going to avoid confronting bigotry and lies if it happens to make you uncomfortable saying something, you aren't going to do a lot to combat bigotry" point.

I don't think that your usage is necessarily common at all or at least not more common than others.

Wow, really? Okay, so tomorrow ask everyone you meet or know or work with etc to use the word "great" in a sentence, and then ask what they meant by "great". I'd be willing to bet you cash money if we were face-to-face on this one. You think most people don't use "great" to mean things like "That's great" or "great food" etc, that it's not meant to imply good quality? I think you're very wrong. I think that is the most common day-to-day usage of the word, and I think if you try that little experiment you'll see how true it is.

Obviously he was not a "good" person and not nearly successful as he'd hoped, but that doesn't mean that he can't fit the definition of great.

And I in fact noted those exact sorts of other meanings of the word's use. You think when Billy's father-in-law said it, he didn't mean any quality-related definition of "great", though? That's the overarching context of this thread, and I think most people hesitate to say things like "Hitler was a great leader" precisely because of the most common meaning that people are likely to read into the comment. But regardless, I know there are other meanings, and I said I suspected that the term wasn't mean to actually imply quality in the quote I responded to. And my points about "greatness" are valid as they apply to Hitler in the context of the definition I was using and that I think is frequently meant when people are willing to claim "Hitler was a great leader."

Really?

You've never had a father-in-law have you?

Only for nearly a decade.

And yes, I've engaged him in plenty of discussion and debate, including recently about Glen Beck. I also have other in-laws who are extremely rightwing, and who have made false assertions at family gatherings. And several of us will refute the claim, and then we move on. I've also believed false information in my life, and when it was pointed out to me that the data/info was erroneous, I was glad to have been corrected before I said it again.

Because in this case the RATIONAL and CORRECT person is the SON-in-law. He has to live for the rest of his life with the IRRATIONAL and INCORRECT person in his life. He can either stand up and say something about it and risk the possibility of pissing that person off, not making a difference anyway, and spending the rest of his life with an IRRATIONAL and INCORRECT ******* or he can ignore something that while being offensive is probably more about ignorance and bigotry than neo-Nazism and spend the rest of his life with an IRRATIONAL and INCORRECT guy.

Okay, have YOU ever had a father-in-law? You can't go around avoiding saying something that might piss someone off, and you can't go around afraid to tell someone in your family -- including in-laws -- that they are wrong out of fear they'll get mad. It is in fact important to stake out certain rights within the family, and within the in-laws, and one of those things is that if they can say things without worrying that it'll piss YOU off, then you have a right to respond. If you live in a family where everyone else expects you to be the one who fears expressing yourself, you'll be pretty miserable. If it's really not a big deal, it shouldn't be a big deal to explain to the guy that he's wrong.

And I think that Billy and his wife apparently HAVE somehow gotten across the point that they don't agree with the guy, from what Billy said previously. So he at least knows they disagree with him, and the world didn't end. I think you are dramatically overstating the implications of speaking your mind to relatives.

I didn't say he should hold an event in the neighborhood to publicly denounce the man, I said if the guy brings it up again then tell him he's wrong and provide some facts. He can do that politely. You don't know this guy personally, right? So you have no idea where he got this idea, how long he's had it, or if he might in fact look at a few facts and wonder why he didn't know about it before. Probably he'll just say something like "Well, I don't know about all of that. I just think it's blown out of proportion" or something like that, and then likely not bring it up around Billy again.

 

[RdeemingRainbow]

Ya know, we've gotten way too far off topic, I think. I apologize for my own contribution to that. I'd prefer to let things get back on topic more, and since I've already told Billy what I think he should do, I don't see a lot of reason to continue debating the off-topic things we got into.

We agree the Holocaust happened, we both dislike bigotry, we both favor fighting bigotry, and we just seem to disagree about whether to correct a father-in-law expressing some outrageous views. Not worthy of continued argument, in my opinion.

The degree of frustration over misunderstandings is also a factor, I just don't feel like getting frustrated over such things. Unless there's some major issue or claim that comes up, I'm inclined to just pass on continuing to argue with you about this, and no hard feelings, we agree on the important things in the issue I think.

 

[Watson]

Funny enough. One of the reasons why pizza is in the USA is because of WWII.

And don't forget, Fanta was the official drink of Nazi Germany!

 

[The Guard]

The hell?

 

[The Guard]

Technically, wouldn't anti semites WANT to believe the Holocaust happened?

 

[Spider-Vader]

Anyone who doesn't believe that the holocaust happened is a d*** head.

"Show me the proof!" What about the millions of Jews that just "magically" disappeared from Europe where Hitler ruled or the ashes... Or even better the actual pictures & videos.


Another, reason why I hate people!

 

[The Guard]

I fail to see why it even matters whether someone believes it happened, denies it happened, etc.

"Oh no, a bigoted or ignorant person is acting bigoted or ignorant!"

Does this really change our day to day lives?

 

[Majic Walrus]

At what point did you get confused about relevance here? Go back and look at the start of this discussion, and why the question of not taking the danger of neo-Nazis and their lies seriously enough to spend time fighting them and refuting their lies is relevant to the issue of this thread.

I'm not even sure what that second sentence said to be honest. It was my impression that you were saying that it was dangerous just to ignore parties of people that were doing wrong and then you used the example of the Nazi party and its inception and rise to power. I think that using that as an example isn't really a good choice. That has nothing to do with denying the holocaust.

Wrong. Again. You've just apparently gotten painfully confused about what the points are and why they came up. Please point to the quote where I claimed Holocaust denial was solely the territory of literal neo-Nazis. You are just woefully misunderstanding the points and what they were relevant to and responding to.

Dude you're the one that brought up neo-Nazis. I made an inference.

Wait, so you are claiming that I'm supposedly wrong for "claiming" (although I didn't actually claim this, and it's your misunderstanding, but for the sake of making this point...) that denying the Holocaust equates to neo-Nazis, but you can jump in and say that people who deny the Holocaust are all "BIGOTS"? Try consistency. It's fun.

I never said you were wrong about anything. I try to avoid absolutes like "right" and "wrong" where ever it's possible. However I can say that denying the holocaust seems to me to be a problem of bigotry, not a lack of knowledge. I don't think that you'll disagree. Not knowing something isn't nearly as dangerous as bigotry is.

Now, please point to the quote where I say or even imply that belief in lies spreads for "no reason whatsoever". You think that my saying exposure to and repetition of lies until they seep into mainstream dialogue unchallenged is the same as "no reason whatsoever"? You have a very odd definition of the term, then.

You didn't present much of a reason that I could tell. Your reasoning then is, I assume, that this totally false belief will spread because it will go on unchallenged. I think that it will very much be challenged. You are my only example of that...

And the implication of your disputing my above claim, and instead saying belief in lies stems from pre-existing inherent bias from the outset, is that there is no source of bigotry beyond it just appearing for "no reason whatsoever". Does a person just randomly choose to start having a prejudice? They aren't exposed to lies and opinions and propaganda or other things from other bigots first, or aren't exposed to events and then subsequently exposed to lies and claims and things that blame those events on this or that group of people?

And are you claiming that a person with little education and knowledge about the Holocaust, who is somewhere that exposes them to repeated doses of lies and propaganda, who has that stuff reinforced perhaps by their families and other people, cannot possibly be influenced into believing the lies? That they instead are uninfluenced by any of that, and instead are a pre-existing bigot (apparently, if this theory is to be consistent, without any influence or initial causation) who just grabs the belief because it reinforces a pre-existing inherent condition?

I see what your point is here. My point was that the people who have this belief have developed it based on their own bigotry. The two things are intertwined in such a way that there's no way to separate them least of which by showing them pictures of dead jews and explaining that the holocaust was real.

Futhermore if someone is ignorant enough to allow themselves to be duped into believing that there is no holocaust then I would imagine that the person feeding them this information could tell them anything and they would believe it no matter how ridiculous.

That's not very rational. And I've not once denied that a person can't also be a bigot, or that the specific lies and propaganda and influences that lead a person to deny the Holocaust are not ALSO influences that breed bigotry. I in fact DO believe that the processes that encourage and lead to Holocaust denial also encourage and lead to bigotry. And yes, some people have already been turned into bigots long ago and so Holocaust denial fits into their existing worldview. But to suggest none of this is a result of the spread of insidious lies and propaganda, and that it isn't at all influenced or helped along by inability or refusal to confront it strongly and loudly, makes no sense.

And you don't see that bigotry depends on ignorance and lies? You think it's possible to attack this person's bigotry, but to remain entirely silent whenever they make an assertion? You think you can -- your word -- ATTACK bigotry, but you think challenging people's lies and presenting evidence to show them they are believing a lie would be too controversial and cause too much fighting? Explain to me how you plan to "attack" bigotry while refusing to "attack" the lies and falsehoods that breed it.

The refusal to challenge the lies and provide the truth means the lies spread, and they infect other minds and help create and reinforce more bigotry. You ignore this fundamental truth -- that bigotry DEPENDS and FEEDS ON lack of information and lack of truth, both replaced with deception and manipulation -- and you'll fail miserably in any attempt to attack bigotry.

I think my argument must not have been presently clearly enough to begin with. I'm all for attacking bigotry in whatever form in any circumstance. But if you want your world to be easier then you should probably not attack the bigotry or ignorance of your father-in-law.

Furthermore I think it's important that you understand that when I say attack bigotry I mean just that. A stance against bigotry in all forms and at the root causes thereof.

If I meet someone who hates black people here in the USA and also believes that if he touches a black person the color will somehow magically transfer over to his skin I do not start out a conversation about bigotry with a book on biology to explain that this would be impossible. That would be dumb as this belief stems from his bigotry not causes it.

Instead what I would do is explain that all people are equal and so forth. Getting to the root of the problem instead of attacking the specific beliefs. I still understand your point, I was just trying to clarify my own.

Good gravy. You are missing some serious points here. Are you really confused about what I am saying in the quote you replied to? Or is this meant to be funny? I'm talking about the spread of lies, that outrageous and false information is widespread even in the mainstream press, and that your claim that something that seems absurd to you shouldn't be taken seriously and couldn't actually be any threat or cause any real harm is simply a wildly false claim.

Again this is not what I meant. What I mean is that if you were comparing current media with cultural history that wouldn't be a good comparison. There are difference between the "lies" of the modern media and the lie of a propaganda driven "fake" holocaust.

No, I'm really not. I'm saying that when your father-in-law claims the Holocaust didn't happen, you should point out that it did. You think otherwise, and expanded the matter into the question of why should we confront someone who holds a false belief, and that challenging things we don't agree with or demonstrating facts to someone who lacks them could lead to Nazism. And I'm saying that's a pretty irrational position, in my opinion.

I really didn't intend to expand the matter.

I don't think we have to make some sort of choice between either confronting Holocaust deniers OR bigotry. I think it's possible to do both, as they come up, and even both frequently if one wishes. There are entire groups dedicated to challenging and arguing against Holocaust-denying groups and speakers. And there are people who just tell their father-in-laws that it's crazy to deny the Holocaust. And there are people who fight bigotry in a lot of different ways and on a lot of issues.

I dig this. We can fight bigotry and holocaust deniers at the same time, my point was that the best way to fight both is to get to the root of the intolerance.

Okay, now I'm thinking you are just intentionally doing it. Acting like you grossly misunderstand the points or something, maybe thinking it's funny. If that's the case, it's not funny. If it's not intentional, and you really are just misunderstanding this badly, there's almost no hope of continuing a normal discussion with you about this.

Not to go out of my way to sound rude, but this isn't the first argument that you've had on these boards where everyone just couldn't understand your points... It could be you.

But let's play the game a minute. So then you are claiming being a neo-Nazi precedes having any beliefs. Right? Someone just becomes a neo-Nazi, and then later is a bigot and stuff (which contradicts your prior arguments suggesting bigotry just pops up without cause).

It's not a "chicken and egg" argument -- having an ideology depends first on actually developing ideas and opinions that conform to an ideology. People are exposed to things that lead them to BECOME neo-Nazis. They aren't born crying "Heil Hitler" with little baby-Hitler mustaches. This is bordering on silliness.

My point was that denying the holocaust doesn't turn someone into a neo-Nazi. You seem to mean that neo-Nazis turn into neo-Nazis when they hear that the holocaust isn't real. That's not true.

I realize that people are not born into being bigots but they are developed and that racism is nurtured. My point is that this single belief does not cause racism.

I don't even know what to say to you when you make statements like this. The fact that some people can be exposed to environments like that and not turn out the same way doesn't dispel the fact that some people are exposed to such things and DO turn out like that.

But my point is that someone believing that the holocaust is fake does not necessarily mean that everyone who hears that is going to up and become a neo-Nazi like it's some sort of audible neo-Nazi plague.

I mean, seriously now, where exactly DO you think bigotry comes from? That it magically springs into someone's head? Nothing happens that leads up to it? Are you actually, seriously trying to argue that exposure to lies and propaganda and hateful environments (where the lies and hate etc are expressed and encouraged) are not among the factors that lead to bigotry? I can't even believe I'm having to have this conversation.

We're still talking about holocaust deniers right. You realize that the belief that the holocaust was a big ol' fake does not make neo-Nazis but rather many many many beliefs. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Majic Walrus]

Yes. Really. I said a guy should not just ignore his father-in-law claiming the Holocaust didn't happen. I said lies like that spread and can have bad consequences, as this particular lie has for example. You disputed my advice to tell the father the truth, and you said challenging it is akin to challenging all things we disagree with and that it can lead to Hitler.

So yeah, perspective. Get some, please.

No. I didn't. You do not need to put words into my mouth to make a point. It's pretty damned obvious that you don't agree with me and that's cool. We all pretty much exhausted our opinions but since you are unclear on what I meant I'm happy to explain.

It is really stupid to be a dick to someone, even if you're right. Sometimes that dick will take you out of his will or punch you in the mouth.

You wouldn't walk up to a neo-Nazi rally with 70 giant neo-Nazis and tell them that they were all stupid would you? No. That would be dumb.

You act like if the OP doesn't immediately confront his father-in-law then tomorrow we'll all be goosestepping around the ovens. I think you might be blowing this out of proportion just a little bit. This was never meant to be a world scale argument.

His father-in-law isn't a person? I think it's especially important to call your family on such things. And Billy isn't the one "bringing it up" -- do you think Billy just occasionally asks "So, what was it you think about the Holocaust again?" No, his father-in-law brings it up. And how exactly do you plan to "attack bigotry" if you also plan to not challenge relatives or people you know too well when they say things like "Hitler was a great guy" or "Boy those Jews are lying about the Holocaust"? You plan to both "attack" bigotry AND avoid unpleasantness if your family proclaims admiration for Nazis? Good luck with that...

You can attack bigotry by being a positive influence. Not by calling someone out for their beliefs in a confrontational manner.

Yes, I can imagine the conversation. Something like (after father-in-law again says "The Holocaust never happened"): "Hey, look, some testimony from Nazis admitting the Holocaust. And some photos of all those dead Jewish people. What's this? Hmm, it looks like the paperwork presented at Nuremberg, showing extermination orders, and the testimony of the Nazis admitting it's legit."

Then I can imagine the father-in-law never feeling like it's safe to assert Hitler's wonderful qualities again, and lots of family get-togethers free of Holocaust-denial. What I can imagine if the father-in-law is NOT answered is a lifetime of family gatherings wondering if he's gonna explain why the Holocaust is fake again, and how great Hitler was.

You say it's not worth the supposed problems afterwards (which I don't think will transpire anyway, the guy will just stop saying it and perhaps be a bit p.o.'ed at whomever told him there's no evidence), I say it's not worth sitting through family gatherings year after year feeling upset and angry until finally the guy says it when someone is around who REALLY goes off on him, or until Billy or his wife gets fed up and starts making excuses to avoid going over there, and the basic "problems" of having to even stifle your own feelings in favor of letting someone else vent their own.

And then there's the whole "basically, if you are going to avoid confronting bigotry and lies if it happens to make you uncomfortable saying something, you aren't going to do a lot to combat bigotry" point.

You're one of those glass is half full people aren't you?

The guy is a bigot and it's obvious that Billy feels uncomfortable enough around him already to have not brought it up. Putting an uncomfortable person in what could be a highly confrontational situation where the benefits are...

Not having to hear about something that you could ignore anyway? If the only benefit to bringing it up is so that you don't have to hear about it I wonder why you would want to fight bigotry at all.

Wow, really? Okay, so tomorrow ask everyone you meet or know or work with etc to use the word "great" in a sentence, and then ask what they meant by "great". I'd be willing to bet you cash money if we were face-to-face on this one. You think most people don't use "great" to mean things like "That's great" or "great food" etc, that it's not meant to imply good quality? I think you're very wrong. I think that is the most common day-to-day usage of the word, and I think if you try that little experiment you'll see how true it is.

Main Entry: 1great
Pronunciation: \ˈgrāt, Southern also ˈgre(&#601t\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English grete, from Old English grēat; akin to Old High German grōz large
Date: before 12th century
1 a : notably large in size : huge b : of a kind characterized by relative largeness &#8212;used in plant and animal names c : elaborate, ample <great detail>
2 a : large in number or measure : numerous <great multitudes> b redominant <the great majority>
3 : remarkable in magnitude, degree, or effectiveness <great bloodshed>
4 : full of emotion <great with anger>
5 a : eminent, distinguished <a great poet> b : chief or preeminent over others &#8212;often used in titles <Lord Great Chamberlain> c : aristocratic, grand <great ladies>
6 : long continued <a great while>
7 : principal, main <a reception in the great hall>
8 : more remote in a family relationship by a single generation than a specified relative <great-grandfather>
9 : markedly superior in character or quality; especially : noble <great of soul>
10 a : remarkably skilled <great at tennis> b : marked by enthusiasm :keen <great on science fiction>
11 &#8212;used as a generalized term of approval <had a great time> <it was just great

Well me and some dictionary think that you're probably not as accurate as you'd like to think.

Stop making such a great big deal about it.

And I in fact noted those exact sorts of other meanings of the word's use. You think when Billy's father-in-law said it, he didn't mean any quality-related definition of "great", though? That's the overarching context of this thread, and I think most people hesitate to say things like "Hitler was a great leader" precisely because of the most common meaning that people are likely to read into the comment. But regardless, I know there are other meanings, and I said I suspected that the term wasn't mean to actually imply quality in the quote I responded to. And my points about "greatness" are valid as they apply to Hitler in the context of the definition I was using and that I think is frequently meant when people are willing to claim "Hitler was a great leader."

So first you decided to assume that you knew what someone thought about one thing just because they thought something about something else?

Just because someone doesn't believe the holocaust was an actual event they automatically think Hitler was awesome?

And then after that you admitted that you knew that the intent of the word great in the post you responded to was probably NOT what you decided to base your ENTIRE argument in the response about. I think you just wanted to write a nice long post about how you don't like Hitler and completely ignore the contest of the post you quoted.

Really?

Only for nearly a decade.

And yes, I've engaged him in plenty of discussion and debate, including recently about Glen Beck. I also have other in-laws who are extremely rightwing, and who have made false assertions at family gatherings. And several of us will refute the claim, and then we move on. I've also believed false information in my life, and when it was pointed out to me that the data/info was erroneous, I was glad to have been corrected before I said it again.

Does he hate you?

Okay, have YOU ever had a father-in-law? You can't go around avoiding saying something that might piss someone off, and you can't go around afraid to tell someone in your family -- including in-laws -- that they are wrong out of fear they'll get mad. It is in fact important to stake out certain rights within the family, and within the in-laws, and one of those things is that if they can say things without worrying that it'll piss YOU off, then you have a right to respond. If you live in a family where everyone else expects you to be the one who fears expressing yourself, you'll be pretty miserable. If it's really not a big deal, it shouldn't be a big deal to explain to the guy that he's wrong.

It has nothing to do with fear. It's about tact. I have had in-laws before and we disagreed on a lot of things so in order to maintain civility we didn't bring those topics up. It's not a difficult task.

Do you always feel the need to share your opinion anytime someone brings up a topic? Like if someone were to make a political comment at work do you immediately throw in your 2 cents about it?

That's pretty untactful, annoying, and not a way to maintain peace in any environment. It is a good way to make people hate you though.

And I think that Billy and his wife apparently HAVE somehow gotten across the point that they don't agree with the guy, from what Billy said previously. So he at least knows they disagree with him, and the world didn't end. I think you are dramatically overstating the implications of speaking your mind to relatives.

So he knows and apparently he's not afraid to bring it up and they still have to hear about it. Imagine that. I guess it didn't go off without a hitch afterall.

I didn't say he should hold an event in the neighborhood to publicly denounce the man, I said if the guy brings it up again then tell him he's wrong and provide some facts. He can do that politely. You don't know this guy personally, right? So you have no idea where he got this idea, how long he's had it, or if he might in fact look at a few facts and wonder why he didn't know about it before. Probably he'll just say something like "Well, I don't know about all of that. I just think it's blown out of proportion" or something like that, and then likely not bring it up around Billy again.

So you've done nothing but make him shut up around Billy. Why bring up a conversation just to get someone to shut up about something if you can just as easily ignore them?

Ya know, we've gotten way too far off topic, I think. I apologize for my own contribution to that. I'd prefer to let things get back on topic more, and since I've already told Billy what I think he should do, I don't see a lot of reason to continue debating the off-topic things we got into.

Ditto.

We agree the Holocaust happened, we both dislike bigotry, we both favor fighting bigotry, and we just seem to disagree about whether to correct a father-in-law expressing some outrageous views. Not worthy of continued argument, in my opinion.

Agreed.

The degree of frustration over misunderstandings is also a factor, I just don't feel like getting frustrated over such things. Unless there's some major issue or claim that comes up, I'm inclined to just pass on continuing to argue with you about this, and no hard feelings, we agree on the important things in the issue I think.

That's cool. I very very rarely keep hard feelings about things. Which is going to make a lot of what I said up there and a lot of what is down here contradictory, but it's not it's all part of the argument.


And if you read all of that you're a great reader.

 

[Majic Walrus]

Yes. Really. I said a guy should not just ignore his father-in-law claiming the Holocaust didn't happen. I said lies like that spread and can have bad consequences, as this particular lie has for example. You disputed my advice to tell the father the truth, and you said challenging it is akin to challenging all things we disagree with and that it can lead to Hitler.

So yeah, perspective. Get some, please.

No. I didn't. You do not need to put words into my mouth to make a point. It's pretty damned obvious that you don't agree with me and that's cool. We all pretty much exhausted our opinions but since you are unclear on what I meant I'm happy to explain.

It is really stupid to be a dick to someone, even if you're right. Sometimes that dick will take you out of his will or punch you in the mouth.

You wouldn't walk up to a neo-Nazi rally with 70 giant neo-Nazis and tell them that they were all stupid would you? No. That would be dumb.

You act like if the OP doesn't immediately confront his father-in-law then tomorrow we'll all be goosestepping around the ovens. I think you might be blowing this out of proportion just a little bit. This was never meant to be a world scale argument.

His father-in-law isn't a person? I think it's especially important to call your family on such things. And Billy isn't the one "bringing it up" -- do you think Billy just occasionally asks "So, what was it you think about the Holocaust again?" No, his father-in-law brings it up. And how exactly do you plan to "attack bigotry" if you also plan to not challenge relatives or people you know too well when they say things like "Hitler was a great guy" or "Boy those Jews are lying about the Holocaust"? You plan to both "attack" bigotry AND avoid unpleasantness if your family proclaims admiration for Nazis? Good luck with that...

You can attack bigotry by being a positive influence. Not by calling someone out for their beliefs in a confrontational manner.

Yes, I can imagine the conversation. Something like (after father-in-law again says "The Holocaust never happened"): "Hey, look, some testimony from Nazis admitting the Holocaust. And some photos of all those dead Jewish people. What's this? Hmm, it looks like the paperwork presented at Nuremberg, showing extermination orders, and the testimony of the Nazis admitting it's legit."

Then I can imagine the father-in-law never feeling like it's safe to assert Hitler's wonderful qualities again, and lots of family get-togethers free of Holocaust-denial. What I can imagine if the father-in-law is NOT answered is a lifetime of family gatherings wondering if he's gonna explain why the Holocaust is fake again, and how great Hitler was.

You say it's not worth the supposed problems afterwards (which I don't think will transpire anyway, the guy will just stop saying it and perhaps be a bit p.o.'ed at whomever told him there's no evidence), I say it's not worth sitting through family gatherings year after year feeling upset and angry until finally the guy says it when someone is around who REALLY goes off on him, or until Billy or his wife gets fed up and starts making excuses to avoid going over there, and the basic "problems" of having to even stifle your own feelings in favor of letting someone else vent their own.

And then there's the whole "basically, if you are going to avoid confronting bigotry and lies if it happens to make you uncomfortable saying something, you aren't going to do a lot to combat bigotry" point.

You're one of those glass is half full people aren't you?

The guy is a bigot and it's obvious that Billy feels uncomfortable enough around him already to have not brought it up. Putting an uncomfortable person in what could be a highly confrontational situation where the benefits are...

Not having to hear about something that you could ignore anyway? If the only benefit to bringing it up is so that you don't have to hear about it I wonder why you would want to fight bigotry at all.

Wow, really? Okay, so tomorrow ask everyone you meet or know or work with etc to use the word "great" in a sentence, and then ask what they meant by "great". I'd be willing to bet you cash money if we were face-to-face on this one. You think most people don't use "great" to mean things like "That's great" or "great food" etc, that it's not meant to imply good quality? I think you're very wrong. I think that is the most common day-to-day usage of the word, and I think if you try that little experiment you'll see how true it is.

Main Entry: 1great
Pronunciation: \&#712;gr&#257;t, Southern also &#712;gre(&#601t\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English grete, from Old English gr&#275;at; akin to Old High German gr&#333;z large
Date: before 12th century
1 a : notably large in size : huge b : of a kind characterized by relative largeness —used in plant and animal names c : elaborate, ample <great detail>
2 a : large in number or measure : numerous <great multitudes> b redominant <the great majority>
3 : remarkable in magnitude, degree, or effectiveness <great bloodshed>
4 : full of emotion <great with anger>
5 a : eminent, distinguished <a great poet> b : chief or preeminent over others —often used in titles <Lord Great Chamberlain> c : aristocratic, grand <great ladies>
6 : long continued <a great while>
7 : principal, main <a reception in the great hall>
8 : more remote in a family relationship by a single generation than a specified relative <great-grandfather>
9 : markedly superior in character or quality; especially : noble <great of soul>
10 a : remarkably skilled <great at tennis> b : marked by enthusiasm :keen <great on science fiction>
11 —used as a generalized term of approval <had a great time> <it was just great

Well me and some dictionary think that you're probably not as accurate as you'd like to think.

Stop making such a great big deal about it.

And I in fact noted those exact sorts of other meanings of the word's use. You think when Billy's father-in-law said it, he didn't mean any quality-related definition of "great", though? That's the overarching context of this thread, and I think most people hesitate to say things like "Hitler was a great leader" precisely because of the most common meaning that people are likely to read into the comment. But regardless, I know there are other meanings, and I said I suspected that the term wasn't mean to actually imply quality in the quote I responded to. And my points about "greatness" are valid as they apply to Hitler in the context of the definition I was using and that I think is frequently meant when people are willing to claim "Hitler was a great leader."

So first you decided to assume that you knew what someone thought about one thing just because they thought something about something else?

Just because someone doesn't believe the holocaust was an actual event they automatically think Hitler was awesome?

And then after that you admitted that you knew that the intent of the word great in the post you responded to was probably NOT what you decided to base your ENTIRE argument in the response about. I think you just wanted to write a nice long post about how you don't like Hitler and completely ignore the contest of the post you quoted.

Really?

Only for nearly a decade.

And yes, I've engaged him in plenty of discussion and debate, including recently about Glen Beck. I also have other in-laws who are extremely rightwing, and who have made false assertions at family gatherings. And several of us will refute the claim, and then we move on. I've also believed false information in my life, and when it was pointed out to me that the data/info was erroneous, I was glad to have been corrected before I said it again.

Does he hate you?

Okay, have YOU ever had a father-in-law? You can't go around avoiding saying something that might piss someone off, and you can't go around afraid to tell someone in your family -- including in-laws -- that they are wrong out of fear they'll get mad. It is in fact important to stake out certain rights within the family, and within the in-laws, and one of those things is that if they can say things without worrying that it'll piss YOU off, then you have a right to respond. If you live in a family where everyone else expects you to be the one who fears expressing yourself, you'll be pretty miserable. If it's really not a big deal, it shouldn't be a big deal to explain to the guy that he's wrong.

It has nothing to do with fear. It's about tact. I have had in-laws before and we disagreed on a lot of things so in order to maintain civility we didn't bring those topics up. It's not a difficult task.

Do you always feel the need to share your opinion anytime someone brings up a topic? Like if someone were to make a political comment at work do you immediately throw in your 2 cents about it?

That's pretty untactful, annoying, and not a way to maintain peace in any environment. It is a good way to make people hate you though.

And I think that Billy and his wife apparently HAVE somehow gotten across the point that they don't agree with the guy, from what Billy said previously. So he at least knows they disagree with him, and the world didn't end. I think you are dramatically overstating the implications of speaking your mind to relatives.

So he knows and apparently he's not afraid to bring it up and they still have to hear about it. Imagine that. I guess it didn't go off without a hitch afterall.

I didn't say he should hold an event in the neighborhood to publicly denounce the man, I said if the guy brings it up again then tell him he's wrong and provide some facts. He can do that politely. You don't know this guy personally, right? So you have no idea where he got this idea, how long he's had it, or if he might in fact look at a few facts and wonder why he didn't know about it before. Probably he'll just say something like "Well, I don't know about all of that. I just think it's blown out of proportion" or something like that, and then likely not bring it up around Billy again.

So you've done nothing but make him shut up around Billy. Why bring up a conversation just to get someone to shut up about something if you can just as easily ignore them?

Ya know, we've gotten way too far off topic, I think. I apologize for my own contribution to that. I'd prefer to let things get back on topic more, and since I've already told Billy what I think he should do, I don't see a lot of reason to continue debating the off-topic things we got into.

Ditto.

We agree the Holocaust happened, we both dislike bigotry, we both favor fighting bigotry, and we just seem to disagree about whether to correct a father-in-law expressing some outrageous views. Not worthy of continued argument, in my opinion.

Agreed.

The degree of frustration over misunderstandings is also a factor, I just don't feel like getting frustrated over such things. Unless there's some major issue or claim that comes up, I'm inclined to just pass on continuing to argue with you about this, and no hard feelings, we agree on the important things in the issue I think.

That's cool. I very very rarely keep hard feelings about things. Which is going to make a lot of what I said up there and a lot of what is down here contradictory, but it's not it's all part of the argument.


And if you read all of that you're a great reader.

 

[The Guard]

Wait, I'm confused. So the cops knew Internal Affairs was setting them up?

 

[Majic Walrus]

Wait, I'm confused. So the cops knew Internal Affairs was setting them up?

 

[bored]

I fail to see why it even matters whether someone believes it happened, denies it happened, etc.

"Oh no, a bigoted or ignorant person is acting bigoted or ignorant!"

Does this really change our day to day lives?

Does it change it? No. Is it tremendously frustrating and offensive, especially to the people who are targeted by such malicious conspiracy theories (Jews, generally, but groups targeted by Nazis as a whole)? Yes.

And to answer your earlier question, anti-Semites deny the Holocaust because they believe it is a ploy by Jews to gain sympathy. Anything that would portray the Jewish people as oppressed or in any way put-upon, they either try to rationalize or out and out deny.

 

[RdeemingRainbow]

I fail to see why it even matters whether someone believes it happened, denies it happened, etc.
"Oh no, a bigoted or ignorant person is acting bigoted or ignorant!"
Does this really change our day to day lives?

That's the point, it does. Bigots get their way, spread lies, etc. The people who directly suffer for it are the people they target, but then we also end up with laws based on that bigotry, for example.

Look at Maine. Did it matter that a lot of bigots think gay marriage is sinful? Yep, it did. Look at Austria, where neo-Nazis (they don't call themselves that, of course, but it's what they are) rose back to power for a while and are still a relevant political party. They relied on bigotry fueled by a lot of lies and propaganda about foreigners and other things in order to spread their beliefs and gain an electoral majority that sent them into power.

Holocaust denial is just one of lots of false beliefs and lies and propaganda that such people spread. If we ignore it, if we act like it's unimportant and doesn't matter, it spreads unchallenged. Plus, just on a basic level, if someone you know or in your family believes a terrible lie based on hatred, why wouldn't you want to tell them they are wrong? We can't stop lies that fuel hatred and bigotry if we refuse to confront them just because it feels uncomfortable.