butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Close, love of repeating shit was other people have written. The term may not stand up to close scrutiny.
Conspiraloon 9/11- 7/7 Truther outed as Holocaust denier
- Thread starter Badger Kitten
- Start date
Close, love of repeating shit was other people have written. The term may not stand up to close scrutiny.
It was not so much the ideology as the personality of the leader at the time causing this derailment.
For the same money you could ask how Germans can still be Germans.
salaam.
ViolentPanda,
The comments on free speech being bullshit and liberal are from earlier posts on this thread. I'm sure posters won't mind naming themselves.
The criteria of academics having to supply firm evidence puts me in a quandary. I regularly lecture on psychoanalysis and am often pushed to justify my ideas with "evidence". I can't always do this.
Under free speech I never said anything about responsibility. As an Anarchist I'm free to say what I want. But I must except that my words have repercussions and for that I accept responsibility. There's a difference between freedom and licence. With the latter one has no interest in the consequences.
It's similar to me arguing (as I do) that paedophiles are not monsters but are everyday fathers, uncles and neighbours. I might not readily put that idea forward in the pub where I drink but in academia I enables me to explore and challenge paedophilia from different standpoints.
I'm for freedom of speech because it can be lost so easily. And, if I'm free to speak about such distatseful things like childhood sexuality, then I must accept that this character is free put forward outrageous challenges to accepted history.
I'd still like to know who is going to police the new restricted speech?
The comments on free speech being bullshit and liberal are from earlier posts on this thread. I'm sure posters won't mind naming themselves.
The criteria of academics having to supply firm evidence puts me in a quandary. I regularly lecture on psychoanalysis and am often pushed to justify my ideas with "evidence". I can't always do this.
Under free speech I never said anything about responsibility. As an Anarchist I'm free to say what I want. But I must except that my words have repercussions and for that I accept responsibility. There's a difference between freedom and licence. With the latter one has no interest in the consequences.
It's similar to me arguing (as I do) that paedophiles are not monsters but are everyday fathers, uncles and neighbours. I might not readily put that idea forward in the pub where I drink but in academia I enables me to explore and challenge paedophilia from different standpoints.
I'm for freedom of speech because it can be lost so easily. And, if I'm free to speak about such distatseful things like childhood sexuality, then I must accept that this character is free put forward outrageous challenges to accepted history.
I'd still like to know who is going to police the new restricted speech?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Badger Kitten
oof
As ButchersApron said, what's that got to do with anything?
Or how Catholics can be Catholics after The Spanish Inquisition/Mary Tudor's burning Protestants/the Crusades etc etc etc.
It's beside the point and off topic. Kollerstrom unequivocally denies millions were killed by the Nazis in the holocaust. He recommends a book written by a Nazi Sympathiser who was jailed for race hate and says it is the 'modern work' on the subject of the Holocaust. He denies the testimony of survivors and eye witnesses. Much as he does with 7/7 and 9/11.
Interestingly, many other 9/11 and 7/7 are also fash/holocaust-deniers/anti-Semites or linked to extreme right wing sites.
Hence this thread.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Many Nazis {rather than neo-Nazis) did accept the reality of the holocaust, as did many of the German people and the German power elite (they still have a legal division dedicated to processing and prosecuting holocaust-related crimes), and it's certain (even if only going by party membership records) that many Communists around the world accepted and abhorred the reality of Soviet and Red Chinese atrocities.
Enemies of the revolution, class enemies, it’s a fairly common justification throughout the history of communist regimes for all sorts of terrible crimes.
So in a good communist revolution and regime, how would these ‘enemies’ be dealt with?
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Go and ask some of them.
Badger Kitten
oof
He has freely spoken about his views. He has freely posted his views under his name, Nick Kollerstrom, PhD where people can freely read them. He has freely reiterated his views on my website and he has freely expressed them elsewhere.
We are freely expressing our disgust on this board, and some people are freely expressing their thoughts to the Uni, who are free to read his free speech and decide if they think they want him on board or want to be free of him.
I don't actually see any police, or any restriction of views, do you?
Where's the police? Where's the restrictions on free speech? Anyone been arrested?
No.
So what are you on about? Want some more straw?
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
If you propose ideas not supported by earlier research/findings as of yet, and do so without mentioning this to your students, you are at fault for being so arrogant.
You are not free to lecture "what you want" unless the institution you teach at is not bound by governmental normative standards for its program. Which I suppose would be the case, is it not.
So how does the obligation to follow the standard coincides with you being an "anarchist"?
No it is absolutely not similar, not even remotely.
The person under discussion published his nonsense in the hopes to get a lot of attention from non academics, using his unrelated academic title to make appear he is an authority in the matter.
That has nothing to do with "freedom of speech" but all with deliberate, calculated undermining of recorded historical facts.
You should first try to find out what is "freedom of speech" and what is deliberate, calculated spreading of a lie.
salaam.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
There's an Urban75 convention: You make the claim, you substantiate it.
We're not talking about psychoanalysis (or indeed any other discipline that requires one to conceptualise beyond the established truths, but about history, a discipline predicated primarily on the discovery and assessment of the historical record.
Which was my point.
You would be advancing a position (re: childhood sexuality) based on a (hopefully) balanced assessment of "the facts", what Dr Kollerstrom is doing is advancing a position through denial of "the facts".
If you're an anarchist then you should know the answer already.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Nope. Might be worth giving the screwloosechange guys a heads up as well.
Aye. It's a common trend for people to accuse others of what they do themselves, but without realising it.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Here comes a fela derail - any passing mods?
Y_I_Otter
Dangerous Terroirist
You are aware that this point has been mentioned 2 or 3 times already, aren't you?
Or perhaps not.
When the Ukrainian famine is raised by Nazi apologists in debating circles it's usually pooh-poohed as the moral equivalency fallacy it so clearly is.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Need the police do you?
Need order and rules and laws do you?
Need security do you?
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Hopefully he'll catch up with that 'Nothing' thread before making himself look an idiot on this one.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Oh come on, he's describing me not himself!Quoted for posterity.
*shakes head at VP's obtuseness*
(Obtusiveness? Obtusivity? I hate english)
chico enrico
No hair shows you care.
yea, but you can't really get much more 'extreme' than holocaust denial
what i would find interesting is where as holocaust denial is a misnomer as all holocaust 'deniers' know full well it happened (they simply think it was a good thing and attempt to 'rehabilitate fascism' through holocaust denial as they would like to see it happen again) has anyone done any research into how many 'truthers' are cynically involved with the 'truth campaign' as it provides an arena for those receptive to their more extreme agendas?
as in - certain 9/11 - 7/7 'truthers' know full well the 'culprits' they point their fingers at is a load of bullshit but perpetuating the whole 'truth campaign' opens doors for them to propogate other concepts, previously regarded as verboten and too taboo for question and debate?
Quoted for posterity.
So easily satisfied.
No bob, i'm describing you. But you of course don't seem to see it. Oh well.
Are you a cocktail waiter?
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
'useful idiot'
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
yea, but you can't really get much more 'extreme' than holocaust denial
what i would find interesting is where as holocaust denial is a misnomer as all holocaust 'deniers' know full well it happened (they simply think it was a good thing and attempt to 'rehabilitate fascism' through holocaust denial as they would like to see it happen again) has anyone done any research into how many 'truthers' are cynically involved with the 'truth campaign' as it provides an arena for those receptive to their more extreme agendas?
as in - certain 9/11 - 7/7 'truthers' know full well the 'culprits' they point their fingers at is a load of bullshit but perpetuating the whole 'truth campaign' opens doors for them to propogate other concepts, previously regarded as verboten and too taboo for question and debate?
This is exactly where people like this bloke, who is genuinely mad enough to think denying the holocaust has no anti-semitic or racist implications come in. They're useful (or more accurately, some people who really are anti-semitic etc, think they'll be useful) in normalising the denial discourse. Of course, the fact they're already marginalised to seeking influence with 911 freaks says all we need to know.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Mad as a hatter you are.
You and me then...
Similar threads
