Bank Account Cheques For Pip Claimants
How it Works1 min ago
Is Facebook Enabling Holocaust Denial?
27 Answers
Answers
archibaldy - You make an excellent point. My view is that if you use computer software to point Holocaust Deniers towards other literature and internet forums that bolster their view is not the same as endorsing that view, and facilitating its spread. As I have pointed out - if you supress a view because it is morally repugnant, you simply add massive weight to...
20:08 Mon 17th Aug 2020
I don't believe it is 'enabling' Holocaust Denial except in terms of accepting the right of anyone to deny the Holocaust under the rights of free speech.
It does not allow any such 'denial' to be part of a bigger message of hatred towards Jews and other religious or racial groups, but simply saying something is not true, is a basic right of free speech, however ludicrous and abhorrent (and HD manages to be both to a considerable degree) such an approach may be.
It does not allow any such 'denial' to be part of a bigger message of hatred towards Jews and other religious or racial groups, but simply saying something is not true, is a basic right of free speech, however ludicrous and abhorrent (and HD manages to be both to a considerable degree) such an approach may be.
Have to agree.
Stopping anyone from expressing a view because it is uncomfortable at one end of the scale right through to irredeemably repugnant ar the other threatens the notion of free speech.
I would prefer any Holocaust Denier to have the freedom to say that, so the normal remainder of the world's population can point and laugh.
Stopping anyone from expressing a view because it is uncomfortable at one end of the scale right through to irredeemably repugnant ar the other threatens the notion of free speech.
I would prefer any Holocaust Denier to have the freedom to say that, so the normal remainder of the world's population can point and laugh.
ANDY, there is a limit to the "free speech" on this site and Mods remove posts breaking the Site Rules so why not on Facebook"?
To state that the Holocaust never happened is an obscenity. Of course it happened. To state the world is flat is equally erroneous. Aliens have long been on this planet, especially the Greys. Elvis’s underwear has been up for sale. Napoleon and Rasputin have had their penis’s sold. A handbag can sell for £35,000, while a child can remain blind for lack of 50p. This planet has the strangest creatures infesting it. Humanity. Denying, refuting, opinionating, who cares? Nothing really matters anyone can see, nothing really matters to me. Thanks Freddie.
Corby - // Corby - // ANDY, there is a limit to the "free speech" on this site and Mods remove posts breaking the Site Rules so why not on Facebook"? //
Because no Moderator on this site would remove a post because the Poster said that the Holocaust was a fiction - to state that is a right under basic rules of Free Speech.
But Free Speech does not entitle anyone to say exactly what they please about anything they fancy. That is abuse of the concept.
The Site Rules broadly break down into simple common sense - don't abuse people, don't advertise, be mindful of younger members, just about sums it up.
Nowhere there does any Rule deny anyone the right to an opinion - only limits to the way it is expressed, which I believe to be totally reasonable.
If there were such draconian restrictions as to deny someone a view point simply because it is abhorrent and highly emotionally charged, then I would have to re-assess my position.
That is why I am happy to be a Moderator.
Because no Moderator on this site would remove a post because the Poster said that the Holocaust was a fiction - to state that is a right under basic rules of Free Speech.
But Free Speech does not entitle anyone to say exactly what they please about anything they fancy. That is abuse of the concept.
The Site Rules broadly break down into simple common sense - don't abuse people, don't advertise, be mindful of younger members, just about sums it up.
Nowhere there does any Rule deny anyone the right to an opinion - only limits to the way it is expressed, which I believe to be totally reasonable.
If there were such draconian restrictions as to deny someone a view point simply because it is abhorrent and highly emotionally charged, then I would have to re-assess my position.
That is why I am happy to be a Moderator.
ANDY, when you wrote,
"Stopping anyone from expressing a view because it is uncomfortable at one end of the scale right through to irredeemably repugnant ar the other threatens the notion of free speech."
It may have been worded poorly but that appears to cover any viewpoint, even if it were racist, for example.
"Stopping anyone from expressing a view because it is uncomfortable at one end of the scale right through to irredeemably repugnant ar the other threatens the notion of free speech."
It may have been worded poorly but that appears to cover any viewpoint, even if it were racist, for example.
AH, ordinarily I agree with peoples right to hold their opinions but when they are so obviously retarded, that breaches the usual tolerance I have. Holocaust denial is one of those, like the morons who believe in the moon "hoax" the evidence against their "view" is so overwhelming that it cannot be based on sentient reasoning. Thus, in my view, they lose any "right" in that instance.
Corby - // It may have been worded poorly but that appears to cover any viewpoint, even if it were racist, for example. //
I disagree.
A concept like Racism has an absolutely clearly defined definition - everyone knows what it is, what it means, and that it is understood that society as a whole will not tolerate it. It is here and now and reflects a bias against people who live in the here and now.
I don't believe that Holocaust Denial fits into that category, because it is a piece of history, and as such deserves its place in an ever-present assessment of where we have been, in order to guide where we are going.
If we try and shoehorn it in to the same area as racism, then we start down the slippery slope where, as I pointed out, any opinion which is deemed to be unpleasant, is censored, when what should be happening is its exposure and demolition by others operating under the same rules and thereby calling out what they believe to be unacceptable.
You can't stop someone holding a view - any view - simply because it pushes your emotional buttons, that way lies the beginning of the end of Free Speech.
I disagree.
A concept like Racism has an absolutely clearly defined definition - everyone knows what it is, what it means, and that it is understood that society as a whole will not tolerate it. It is here and now and reflects a bias against people who live in the here and now.
I don't believe that Holocaust Denial fits into that category, because it is a piece of history, and as such deserves its place in an ever-present assessment of where we have been, in order to guide where we are going.
If we try and shoehorn it in to the same area as racism, then we start down the slippery slope where, as I pointed out, any opinion which is deemed to be unpleasant, is censored, when what should be happening is its exposure and demolition by others operating under the same rules and thereby calling out what they believe to be unacceptable.
You can't stop someone holding a view - any view - simply because it pushes your emotional buttons, that way lies the beginning of the end of Free Speech.
TTT - // AH, ordinarily I agree with peoples right to hold their opinions but when they are so obviously retarded, that breaches the usual tolerance I have. Holocaust denial is one of those, like the morons who believe in the moon "hoax" the evidence against their "view" is so overwhelming that it cannot be based on sentient reasoning. Thus, in my view, they lose any "right" in that instance. //
I cannot agree with that viewpoint either.
The two are somewhat different - denial of the moon landings is never going to engender the sheer visceral emotional reaction that is always going to accompany the concept of the Holocaust Denial - no-one died from landing on the moon.
My issue is, who makes the decisions?
Whose sense of what is acceptable defines what we will and will not allow as a viewpoint?
I believe these issues have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, and by a consensus rather than, say you, or me, or any other individual, simply deciding that because a viewpoint is too ludicrous / repellant / barmy etc. ad infinitum, to be held, it cannot be held.
That is the realm of the Thought Police - not a good place to be.
I cannot agree with that viewpoint either.
The two are somewhat different - denial of the moon landings is never going to engender the sheer visceral emotional reaction that is always going to accompany the concept of the Holocaust Denial - no-one died from landing on the moon.
My issue is, who makes the decisions?
Whose sense of what is acceptable defines what we will and will not allow as a viewpoint?
I believe these issues have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, and by a consensus rather than, say you, or me, or any other individual, simply deciding that because a viewpoint is too ludicrous / repellant / barmy etc. ad infinitum, to be held, it cannot be held.
That is the realm of the Thought Police - not a good place to be.
AH: "The two are somewhat different - denial of the moon landings is never going to engender the sheer visceral emotional reaction that is always going to accompany the concept of the Holocaust Denial - no-one died from landing on the moon. " - yes but they both have such overwhelming evidence that they happened that any denier, by definition is either retarded or deliberately holding that view for their own ends.
TTT - // ... they both have such overwhelming evidence that they happened that any denier, by definition is either retarded or deliberately holding that view for their own ends. //
I would not argue that as a point of view.
But my position would be to let a denial stand, exposed in the harsh light of overwhelming historical evidence, and het the denial-holder feel the chill wind of laugher from the world in his face for the fool that he is.
That to me would be preferable to stopping the view being held altogether, which by definition, would actually create and nurture the sort of conspiracy theory thinking that leads to such views in the first place.
Because you can't stop a view from being held, you can only stop it from being expressed, and stopping the expression of views because they are ludicrous and clearly not based on fact is not a correct way for a free society to operate.
I would not argue that as a point of view.
But my position would be to let a denial stand, exposed in the harsh light of overwhelming historical evidence, and het the denial-holder feel the chill wind of laugher from the world in his face for the fool that he is.
That to me would be preferable to stopping the view being held altogether, which by definition, would actually create and nurture the sort of conspiracy theory thinking that leads to such views in the first place.
Because you can't stop a view from being held, you can only stop it from being expressed, and stopping the expression of views because they are ludicrous and clearly not based on fact is not a correct way for a free society to operate.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Motoring9 mins ago
Crosswords24 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles45 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.