Hate-Speech Hypocrites

[vsdoc]

Mulla ji aur baaki doston ko mera sadar pranam.

 

[mfreak]

Where does genuine curiosity end and bigotry begin?

Curiosity ends and bigotry starts, when you DENY the holocaust. Bigotry starts when you STATE that 6 million didnt die but a far lesser number did.

No one is saying its wrong if you ASK, how many died, and then go on to research facts, or ask more questions.

We've gone through this before, you keep conflating denial with questioning.

Hating Jews is a crime. Hating Israel should not be.
(And please don't give me the standard Israeli line that they are one and the same.)

Hating Israel is not anti-semitism. Technically speaking. However Israel being a JEWISH state most of the times it turns out to be anti-semitism that leads to hating Israel (because those people generally reject Israel's right to exist, which means they want 7 million people to die). You can however hate their policies and vocally or in any form condemn it.

For anti-Muslim speech, the speaker is deemed innocent and it is up to the listener to prove that the speaker had malicious intent. Intent is notoriously hard to prove, especially when it comes to free speech which are fiercely cherished by the courts.

The intent is hard to prove, BECAUSE of the inherent fallacies in Islam or Muslim culture or those practicing it (or atleast perceived as fallacies by those that dont agree with it). As long as this difference exists, you just cant solve this issue adequately.

For Holocaust speech, the speaker is automatically presumed to be anti-Semitic unless they can prove otherwise. In fact, there is no defence, since the speech is banned, period. Even if the person can prove their innocence, they can still go to jail for not knowing the law

.

Holocaust speech is not banned. Holocaust denial is. When it comes to holocaust denial, there is no doubt, that it is anti-semitism. And given the fact that Europe is collectively guilty for meting out such injustice to the Jews, they actively enforce it.

 

[fallstuff]

PDF is completly infested with Indian trolls.

 

[gambit]

Again, you are positing racism as a motivation a priori to justify the ban on Holocaust revisionism.

Ahhh...Racism is integral to Holocaust denial. The word 'revisionism' is just a shield for 'denial' because the person is just too chickensh1t to reveal himself. And racism is not used alone in the analyses that led to these somewhat mislabeled 'Holocaust denial' laws, although the analysts does take racism as prominent factor.

If we are dealing with motives, not the act itself, then we can say with equal certainty that people who spout Islamophobia tend to be xenophobes and/or racists before hand. Therefore, the motivation for anti-Islam speech (or any racial/religious vilification) is xenophobia, not intellectual debate, and such speech should be treated on par with Holocaust revisionism.

Therein lies the flaw in your argument.

Laws against Holocaust denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the above list of countries that have the so called law banning Holocaust denial, explain to us why Papua New Guinea and South Korea are not listed. Do either of these people have no concept of 'racism'?

Of the above list, two countries explicitly verbalized 'Holocaust': Israel and Romania. The rest pretty much worded their laws to include protection for other minorities as well as indirectly protecting the Jews via the Holocaust.

Poland included crimes committed by communists...

In addition to Holocaust denial, the denial of communist crimes is punishable by law in Poland.

The Netherlands broadly cast the 'hatred' net...

While Holocaust denial is not explicitly illegal in The Netherlands, the courts consider it a form of spreading hatred and therefore an offence.

Or Liechtenstein equally wide net of 'genocide' denial...

... item five of section 283 of Liechtenstein's criminal code prohibits the denial of genocide.

So why did neither Papua New Guinea nor South Korea nor Viet Nam nor Micronesia have their own so called 'Holocaust denial' laws?

Not because these people do not understand the concept of racism but because their people at the relevant time had no PARTICIPATION in the Nazi led attempt to commit genocide against the Jews. They had to reasons for each nation to develop a collective guilt of that crime. Germany, England, France, and Italy -- do. So in order to prevent the resurgence of the mentality and organization that created and led to the horrific crime called 'the Holocaust', a prophylactic measure must be available and each nation (people) called up on their collective guilt and enacted these so called 'Holocaust denial' laws. Israel is an understandable exception from this reasoning because the Jews were victims. They have every right to have a real 'Holocaust denial' law, instead of an alleged/alluded one, in their country. If anything, it is probably more symbolic than legal.

You speak as if these people whose eyes were widened at the end of WW II as to what their leaders have done and who progressed to become more democratic than despotic do not recognize some measure of conflict of their 'Holocaust denial' laws to their belief of freedom of speech. Indeed they do recognize that conflict. But it was only one generation ago that their leaders and many of their countrymen either directly or indirectly participated in the methodical attempt to erase a nation off the ethno/religious map. In their minds, this narrow conflict is worth the price to pay to allow time and progressive thinking to slowly erase the irrational 'Jew hatred' mentality from their societies. These peoples are not as stupid as you would like to believe.

But it is telling that the muslims also have members who participated in the methodical attempt to commit genocide on the Jews but not one muslim country is in that list of countries that have the so called 'Holocaust denial' law. Instead, we have muslims continues to propagate the lie 'The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion' or that Jews drink non-Jews blood or that Zionists controls countries.

Exactly: all hate speech has consequences, including Islamophobic speech.

You mean like this...

We do not live our lives in an intellectual and moral vacuum. Everything we do, even biological impulses, have justifications. But ideas, or justifications, need physical agents to commit 'deeds'. Therefore, the next flaw in your argument is that there is no valid comparison between a deed and an idea. If I believe that Jews are pigs and apes to the point of religious fervor, can I claim religious protection so that you have no right to criticize my belief?

The Holocaust was a deed. We have plenty enough physical proofs, not merely hinting evidences, about it. So if it is legitimate for me to criticize the foundation of the mentality that led to that deed, it is equally legitimate for me to criticize the foundation of the mentality that convinced so many whites that blacks are cursed by God and therefore are natural slaves for whites. It also mean that it is legitimate to criticize Islam -- an idea -- to the point of insults and/or slanders of its famous characters. If YOU can criticize Hitler and his religious beliefs, then why is it wrong for him to criticize your Islamic ones?

Leaving aside people like Breivik, the less visible consequences involve discrimination against Muslims because of the ongoing demonization. This is not hypothetical; BBC and others have done studies in France, Britain, etc. that confirm bias against applicants with Muslim names. Granted, it does not equal mass murder, but it's the start of a trend of demonize and isolate a segment of society.

When muslims decided not to integrate, that decision is pretty much one of self exclusion. I have friends in the UK who outright told me not to return to visit because the London I knew and liked back in the 1980s is not the London they in their old age avoid today for FEAR OF PERSONAL SAFETY in many areas of the city. A trend can be a double edged sword, and in the case of the London muslim, it is an Islamic one.

Personally, I can see why someone might ask how the figure came to be six million, as opposed to four or eight. Asking for evidence backing the details is not anti-Semitism.

And the refusal of the muslims to denounce the fraud 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' is motivated by what? A legitimate investigation into the figure of how many Jews died back in WW II?

Please...If the muslims refused to believe that fraud is a fraud, then how are the Jews to expect you to question that 'six million' figure objectively?

Again, it is politically incorrect to point out the truth, but the fact is that Holocaust revisionists have been physically attacked, even murdered (although I don't know if anyone claimed responsibility), and revisionist organizations have had their property and offices torched. Now, of course, you will say it's a matter of degree, but the point is that, when the law itself puts people behind bars and society at large censures such views, it does a good enough job of deterring violence.

Stop using the word 'revisionist'. You are not fooling anyone here. The correct word is 'denial'. These people do so out of a deep seated and irrational hatred for Jews and if given the chance to get away with a crime against a Jew, no matter how petty or major, they will do it. They have no moral restraints typical of civilized and progressive people. So if they get a taste of the medicine they wish, secretly and openly, to deal out to Jews, I say they deserve it. Allow the Jews to defend themselves.

Correct; faith is, by definition, beyond proof and must be taken on its terms. That is why there are laws against religious vilification in many countries.

You mean you wish to exempt Islam from proofs while demanding that others proves their religious legitimacy, else they should perish via conversion, forced if necessary. Laws that protect religions from criticisms no matter how slight or severe exists to protect the overly sensitive believers. Like I said earlier, religions are ideas and they need human agencies to exist and propagate. It is because of these human agencies that we have religious wars, large and small. So in these countries that are filled with overly sensitive religionists, it is better off to persecute the minority non-believers to preserve the peace. Such laws are indicative of the maturity of the dominant people who support those laws.

Facts, on the other hand, do NOT need to be buttressed by legal protections. They stand on their own merit.

I still don't see it.

Flat Earth belief, like Holocaust denial, is an irrational belief that can be refuted easily enough using facts. There is no need for laws (unless you automatically equate it with anti-Semitism).

That is why we do not have evolutionists beating up creationists. Or the geophysics scientist raging at his Flat Earther neighbor. Religions are from irrational ideas but supported by rational beings. The inner conflict is self evident per believer. That is why for the Europeans, it is less about protecting the Jews and the Holocaust but more about being preventative of rational beings positing irrational ideas as true. Sorry, but questioning whether the Holocaust existed or not is irrational, while questioning irrational ideas, read 'religions', as to their legitimacy in demanding one's allegiance is quite rational and should be done.

Correct, and our argument is that the laws should be written as to prevent vilification of all religions and races. It is true that the historical context in Europe is about Jews but, as you mentioned, the law is designed with consequences in mind, and the long term consequences of Islamophobia (or any racial/religious vilification) are also clear.

Yeah...When the muslims get rid of 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' we can discuss those other consequences. World Jewry is quite confident that the muslims, if denied the Holocaust as a non-disputable event, will still be able to find other things to justify their persecution of Jews, like this fraud for instant. The Europeans, on the other hand, conceded to the possibility that among their own, there could be a resurgence of the mentality that made possible another 'Holocaust' and that the prophylactic measures they created for themselves is for the moment the best they could devise. Much more than we can say for the muslims.

 

[Developereo]

Bigotry starts when you STATE that 6 million didnt die but a far lesser number did.

No one is saying its wrong if you ASK, how many died, and then go on to research facts, or ask more questions.

Those two statements are contradictory. What you are saying is anyone can investigate all they want, as long as they come up with the required answer. If the conclusion is mandated by law, what's the point of asking questions?

We've gone through this before, you keep conflating denial with questioning.

No, you are the one who keeps confusing the two as I explained just above.

Technically speaking. However Israel being a JEWISH state most of the times it turns out to be anti-semitism that leads to hating Israel (because those people generally reject Israel's right to exist, which means they want 7 million people to die).

This is the standard Israeli apologist speech. As I explained, even Holocaust survivors chastise the Israeli apologists for shamelessly abusing this card.

The intent is hard to prove, BECAUSE

Wrong. Intent is hard to prove in ANY criminal case -- nothing to do with Islam or Muslims.

That is the whole hypocrisy: in this case, the burden of proof is on the listener, whereas in the Holocaust case, the intent is assumed unless proved otherwise.

 

[JayAtl]

^^^ I thought you said you were not a Holocaust denier to FaujHistorian. I knew that not to be true but did not say anything. Alas! give you 24 hrs and you will start obfuscating that position too. Only closeted deniers try to find semantics of 10 million killed vs 6 million killed as a point of contention.

 

[Developereo]

Rant

You entire rant consists of OPINIONS, not FACTS.

Come back when you can distinguish the difference between the two.

You ascribe motives to people based on your OPINION, and some individuals, to fabricate a conclusion couched as FACT. By your logic, since we know many of the people who write anti-Islam literature have openly admitted hatred of all Muslims regardless, then we can extrapolate and claim that ANYONE who writes anti-Muslim literature must be similarly motivated.

The irony of your tantrum is that you use the actions of Muslim extremists to justify your hatred of all Muslims. While we are talking opinions, I will venture that, if a poll were taken of Muslims in Western countries, an overwhelming majority would vote for banning these extremist organizations. This is the dark side of freedom of speech. Many of these extremists (Hizb-Tahrir, etc.) are banned in Muslim countries, but they thrive in the West and bring a bad name to all Muslims.

P.S. This discussion is about laws around Holocaust speech, so countries which do not have such laws are irrelevant to the debate. Also, the European history prompting the laws is also known and accepted; it explains but does not change the fact of the double standard, which is the topic of the thread.

Only closeted deniers try to find semantics of 10 million killed vs 6 million killed as a point of contention.

Where is the Holocaust denial?

Perhaps they didn't teach you to read English back in India, or you are using the same intellectual dishonesty to prescribe motives to people based on your OPINION rather than FACTS.

 

[JayAtl]

You entire rant consists of OPINIONS, not FACTS.

Come back when you can distinguish the difference between the two.



Where is the Holocaust denial?

Perhaps they didn't teach you to read English back in India.

You are. They taught me the powers of sniffing out a hoax. You don't deny Holocaust when asked, but you deny practically all of the claims behind it. Clever when in a group of lesser minds ...

 

[Developereo]

You are. They taught me the powers of sniffing out a hoax. You don't deny Holocaust when asked, but you deny practically all of the claims behind it. Clever when in a group of lesser minds ...

"all of the claims"?

Really? Exactly which of the claims have I denied?

Desperate much?

 

[mfreak]

Those two statements are contradictory. What you are saying is anyone can investigate all they want, as long as they come up with the required answer. If the conclusion is mandated by law, what's the point of asking questions?

It isnt the required answer. It is the right one. It is not wrong to be skeptical about 6 million (BTW, the skepticism regarding the number is actually because of being sympathetic to the Nazis. They quote a far lesser number like 2 million, stating stuff like gas chambers didnt exist, or there were no laws passed to execute Jews etc etc., I am just keeping with the number to prevent the discussion into going into a holocaust discussion, and thereby deviating). But once you look at facts, and THEN DENY IT, it is holocaust denial aka anti-semitism aka racism, that needs to be dealt with.

This is the standard Israeli apologist speech. As I explained, even Holocaust survivors chastise the Israeli apologists for shamelessly abusing this card.

Yeah a couple do. That doesnt mean anything. People have their own opinions. Chastising and calling Israel a terrorist state are two different things. You seem to have a weird idea about what criticism is. For you criticism is absolving Muslims of all responsibility for their current state, and then blaming the Jews. Or white people. Or whatever.

Wrong. Intent is hard to prove in ANY criminal case -- nothing to do with Islam or Muslims.

Nope. It is not. Especially when it comes to bigotry. We are not talking about some complicated criminal case here. We are talking about social issues. Socially if you do not integrate, in a place where the majority follow a particular culture, whether you are a muslim, a jew, a christian, an Indian or a Pakistani, you will be an outcast and suffer repercussions. Add religious extremism to that, you cant completely blame people for being skeptical about Muslims.

BTW you conveniently ignore a lot of my questions, Ive been noticing.

I asked you a very important question in one of my previous posts.

Ill repeat again:

Why is it in Saudi Arabia, western women that travel there (like journalists for example), need to wear a burqa, while in the west Muslims demand that they wear the burqa, even if it is not the local tradition? Why is there a double standard when it comes to muslims then? If you expect to be allowed to follow your culture and be treated equally, shouldnt you extend the same hand to them?

 

[JayAtl]

"all of the claims"?

Really? Exactly which of the claims have I denied?

Desperate much?

if you deny the underline claim of how many died , then you deny the bigger claim of it being a genocide and thus deny Holocaust as being a " holocaust". Same goes for your subtle objections to other claims made , you have so many confusing BUT BUT added to as an addendum to your so called agreement of the Holocaust took place, it gets desperately pathetic ...

 

[Developereo]

if you deny the underline claim of how many died , then you deny the bigger claim of it being a genocide and thus deny Holocaust as being a " holocaust".

I would chalk it down to a poor education system but, since India has a relatively decent school system, we can excuse your reading comprehension to personal problems or just plain intellectual dishonesty.

Here's the phrase you need to wrap your mind around: "I don't agree with what you say but I defend your right to say it". The issue here is not whether the figure is right or wrong, but whether investigating it should be illegal.

Of course, we know you will come up with some roundabout excuse to continue your tantrum, seeing as how you have been unable to write a single post in this thread that is actually salient to the topic.

Same goes for your subtle objections to other claims made , you have so many confusing BUT BUT added to as an addendum to your so called agreement of the Holocaust took place, it gets desperately pathetic ...

Uh huh. So more vagueness about "other claims", eh?

I do love watching you dance around since you have NOTHING of substance to bring to the discussion.

P.S. I am still waiting for you to show me where I have denied a single claim related to the Holocaust.

 

[Developereo]

It isnt the required answer. It is the right one. It is not wrong to be skeptical about 6 million (BTW, the skepticism regarding the number is actually because of being sympathetic to the Nazis. They quote a far lesser number like 2 million, stating stuff like gas chambers didnt exist, or there were no laws passed to execute Jews etc etc., I am just keeping with the number to prevent the discussion into going into a holocaust discussion, and thereby deviating). But once you look at facts, and THEN DENY IT, it is holocaust denial aka anti-semitism aka racism, that needs to be dealt with.

More sophistry that boils down to "you can ask all you want as long as you end up with the required answer". I am guessing you haven't a clue about how academic research works.

Yeah a couple do. That doesnt mean anything. People have their own opinions. Chastising and calling Israel a terrorist state are two different things. You seem to have a weird idea about what criticism is. For you criticism is absolving Muslims of all responsibility for their current state, and then blaming the Jews. Or white people. Or whatever.

Yawn. Here we go again...

Try to stick to a topic without attacking me or launching into your anti-Muslim tantrums when you can't refute a specific point.

The anti-Semitism shield is the first resort of the incompetent and the last refuge of the desperate.

Nope. It is not. Especially when it comes to bigotry. We are not talking about some complicated criminal case here. We are talking about social issues. Socially if you do not integrate, in a place where the majority follow a particular culture, whether you are a muslim, a jew, a christian, an Indian or a Pakistani, you will be an outcast and suffer repercussions. Add religious extremism to that, you cant completely blame people for being skeptical about Muslims.

Another example of your intellectual dishonesty. The question was about proving the intent of people who engage in anti-Muslim hate speech and you conveniently switched to your old standby of Muslim bashing to avoid answering the actual question.

BTW you conveniently ignore a lot of my questions, Ive been noticing.

Because they are not related to the topic of this thread, which is the double standard in Western speech laws.

 

[mfreak]

More sophistry that boils down to "you can ask all you want as long as you end up with the required answer". I am guessing you haven't a clue about how academic research works.

You guessed wrong. I know how academic research works. And I also happen to know how anti-semitism works. Dont pretend that you are advocating something intellectual, which you are not. Holocaust revisionism is not an intellectual debate. However I am willing to entertain it, merely because I wanna be objective and not point fingers at the first opportunity and for the purposes of education to show people the truth about that historic event without being too judgemental.

Try to stick to a topic without attacking me or launching into your anti-Muslim tantrums when you can't refute a specific point.

If you would indulge me in actually addressing the core issue, that would help the cause...I guess ^^. Instead of the subtle holocaust denials and the "evil jew" theories.

Another example of your intellectual dishonesty. The question was about proving the intent of people who engage in anti-Muslim hate speech and you conveniently switched to your old standby of Muslim bashing to avoid answering the actual question.

I didnt ask you to pass a comment on my comment. I am asking you to answer it. When you say muslims are angels and face the worst stereotypes in the world and no one does anything about it cuz everyone is hypocritical, I am merely pointing out an instance that shows muslim hypocrisy, double standards, racism and intolerance. The fact that you actually cant answer the question, undermines your position, because it implicitly justifies my position, that Islamaphobia is not without its genuine reasons - reasons that muslims are responsible for themselves.

Unless you address, the question WHY muslims are perceived in a negative way, the way they are, which I agree is unfortunate, all your adhom attacks, red herrings and strawmen merely amount to throwing tantrums because you have a uni dimensional world view, where everyone abuses one group, while that particular group is not to be blamed for anything. That is not the case.

Free speech laws and their applicability/interpretation are bound to a great extent by social conditions, so ignoring social conditions is not gonna answer the question "Why western double standards". Double standards dont pop up out of the blue. They come to be about, because of certain reasons and to either solve the issue or answer the questions about the issue, one needs to dig deeper. Which you arent willing to do. This is the same problem most muslims also face. The fear of facing the truth.

So no use, blaming western nations for their bigotry, when you are unable or unwilling to explore your own fallacies in the first place.

 

[Developereo]

You guessed wrong. I know how academic research works.

Wrong.

You haven't the faintest clue how academic research works. You don't mandate a predetermined answer and fit the facts to arrive at that answer. You go where the facts lead you without preconceived notions.

If you say to someone, "sure, do your research but we know this is the answer so if you come up with a different answer, it means you are a racist", then that's not academic research. A proper academic approach would allow the research to reach its own conclusions without preconceptions and then try to refute the conclusion by pointing out any flaws in the research.

And I also happen to know how anti-semitism works

Yawn. Spare me.

I have debated various issues including Israel with Zionists who can run circles around most people here, including you, and they don't resort to the anti-Semitism shield. That petty refuge is the hallmark of incompetents who can't debate.

When you say muslims are angels and face the worst stereotypes in the world and no one does anything about it cuz everyone is hypocritical, I am merely pointing out an instance that shows muslim hypocrisy, double standards, racism and intolerance. The fact that you actually cant answer the question, undermines your position, because it implicitly justifies my position, that Islamaphobia is not without its genuine reasons - reasons that muslims are responsible for themselves.

I never said Muslims are angels. I already explained how migrant groups have been stigmatized through the ages by unfairly extrapolating the actions of extremist elements to demonize the whole community. I also explained why the law should not enshrine popular bigotry but fight it. I urged you to educate yourself about the history of migration but you are determined to justify Islamophobia by treating it as a special case.

There's no point in me wasting any more time going in circles.