"Holocaust denialism" Topic

One of the largest wargaming websites and forums on the globe, and he we are debating whether we should allow Holocaust Denial, and tolerate it in the name of freedom.

Aren't we just a great advertisement for the hobby folks, or what!

And we're doing their memory so proud, aren't we?

I would venture that "holocaust" discussion should be in itself DH fodder. Unless one is gaming something to do with escapes or round ups – then that in itself is rather unsavoury.

I have an Ordnungspolizei force in 28mm but would not wish to use them to clear ghettos or execute civilians. They merely fight Bolshewik partisans and occasionally frontline Ivans. That said their panzers do not farewell against T34s.

I am sure there are many other places where the magnitude of exterminations perpetrated by all combatants can be discussed, this is not one of them.

I support a yes/no poll.

The schizophrenia of the TMP "free speech" policy is breathtaking.
One member states things patently offensive, and he is allowed to skate. This is "Free speech" in its purest form.
HOWEVER, let anyone take him to task, exercising THEIR free speech and they get locked , banned or thrown on the DH.
Let me give just two examples. Pedophilia and Holocaust Denial.
Why are those who attempt to reply to the offensive posts the ones who get punished and the proponents skate?
A neutral observer can only conclude that Management approves of the offensive posts and protects them.

Is this what you want, Bill? Is this how you wish to be perceived on the site you claim is your chief source of income?

I do not support such a poll. To question the status quo is an individuals right. To decide whether or not such questioning oversteps the rules of the forum is the decision of the Editor and his team.

My personal views about WW2 and subsequent revisionism are not relevant to gaming topics and thus I don't go there. However to ban someone for questioning the accepted view of the masses is in itself the action of an insecure person. Surely if the accepted view was so unassailable, the questioner would merely look like a fool?

Personally, I do not believe in the moon landings being "as accepted" but does this view justify my being banned? Also does the challenging of "facts" about post war atrocities against German PoWs mean that one should be DHed?

Oh and incidentally, I speak not from a position of complete detachment. My Uncle was for three years at Dachau (a camp system largely populated by gentiles) and he was no monster.

In my opinion, it's better to let denialists to expose in public their bigotry. It is not that I believe that free speech would be threatened by dawghousing them, but that there is nothing more effective against their propaganda than giving them the rope to hang themselves.

Put it to a vote.

Well there's nothing quite like trivialising the argument is there Porkmann? The Holocaust can simply be regarded as the "accepted view of the masses", and can be equated with the burning moral issue of whether or not the Moon landings were faked. My you're a class act.

And what was your uncle at Dachau, victim or part of the system? You hint at it but no more.

In my opinion, it's better to let denialists to expose in public their bigotry. It is not that I believe that free speech would be threatened by dawghousing them, but that there is nothing more effective against their propaganda than giving them the rope to hang themselves.

Fine. In theory. However, the ones getting punished are the ones speaking out against them.
"Free Speech" goes only one way on TMP, and that is towards giving the obnoxious all the leeway, and punishing those who oppose them.

Good day to you too Deephorse. Both space race and "holocaust" are ripe with allegation and counterstroke.

Certain facts are cited in defence and then ignored when they suggest the accepted view is false or misrepresented.

Persecution of all manner of peoples occurred in WW2. The fact that many of the claims concerning some minorities made after WW2 had also been made during the Great War is irrefutable.

Take what conclusions you will.

The fact that many of the claims concerning some minorities made after WW2 had also been made during the Great War is irrefutable.

And before the Great War as well. Europeans had been oppressing the Jews for centuries, because being superstitious over famines and plagues is easier than inventing microscopes. Pogroms and massacres against individual towns transformed into coordinated continent-wide extermination thanks to the inventions of repeating firearms, mass communication, and the railroads.

Denying the Holocaust is a political tenet. It's naive to think otherwise. It should fall under the political ban.

The concept of free speech is diametrically opposed to Bill's oft-stated policy of "my house, my rules." If free speech doesn't apply to ALL speech (aside from the accepted exceptions of threat speech or "yelling FIRE In a theater"), then it isn't actually FREE.

Rather than representing freedom of speech, this sort of "you can say this, but not that" is editorial policy, pure and simple. The Editor, through his action or inaction is stating his editorial policy: In this case, that policy indicates he believes posts that deny the Holocaust on a site that otherwise restricts political discourse is acceptable.

The argument that the Holocaust occurred over 10 years ago doesn't apply here, IMO, as the on-going effort of fringe hate-groups to deny the Holocaust is a dismaying current political trend. Holocaust denial is definitely "current affairs" even if the Holocaust itself is not.

Shawn.

The fact that one puts holocaust in quotes speaks volumes.

On the plus side, these topics are great for calling out all the little Nazi-wannabes. They're so funny in their dress-up outfits, pretending to be supermen. They actually make "lightning bolt! Lightning bolt!"-style LARPers seem cool.

I'd also much rather game with the lightning bolt crew.

I've been watching TMP with increasing discomfort for a while now, and I've been thinking about leaving all the time. The thing is, there are a lot of very nice and decent people here and I really like many discussions and the support.

However, the problem is not the people or the occasional stupidity. The problem is that the editor thinks he has to transform a wargaming forum into an outlet and a platform for his personal political beliefs. As the OFM says, this has nothing to do with free speech but with the stance of the editor, which is highly selective and, as it seems from this discussion, is ironically not at all representative of the majority of the participants.

This makes me sad, as this is not what I want from my hobby nor from a platform were my hobby is discussed and, as someone has already stated, which is also formative of how this hobby is perceived by the outside world.

Do we really want to be the figureheads for Mr Armintrouts personal political opinions?

AAG has the right of it. TMP has always been the Editor's domain and he has quite openly stated that this is the case. If the enforcement of his policy is problematical then an individual is free to go elsewhere.

Generally I just ignore the thread if it is offensive to my sensibilities.

This whole thread could be deemed by some as trolling and I like many others have risen to the bait.

Probably best to drop it all and go back to playing with our toys… Anyway my Orpos need their T26 finished for the next "partisan sweep" ☺

One member states things patently offensive, and he is allowed to skate. This is "Free speech" in its purest form.
HOWEVER, let anyone take him to task, exercising THEIR free speech and they get locked, banned or thrown on the DH.

Where has anyone been banned, locked or DH'd for expressing an opinion?

It hasn't happened. If people violate forum rules, there is a consequence. If they attack someone, they go into the Dawghouse. If they are previously banned members trying to stir things up, their accounts gets locked (again). If they attack the moderators, they are removed from the community.

You might have missed AAG's point…

The problem is that the editor thinks he has to transform a wargaming forum into an outlet and a platform for his personal political beliefs.

If you are accusing me of being a Holocaust denier, you are quite wrong.

To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.
- Frederick Douglass

Where has anyone been banned, locked or DH'd for expressing an opinion?

How can we tell? You delete everything.

Nah, Bill, folks just think your enforcement is wonky, that's all. You allow troll bait posts, but then take punitive action against those who speak out against the trolling. Rationalize how you want, but it just comes off as being very selective in what speech is actually free.

Can't have it both ways, chief.

Related, this cracks me up:

No I don't. I accuse you of tolerating Holocaust denial while not tolerating things like 'Blasphemy' or talk about a certain other forum or a wargames show. This is selective to me – it favors free speech concerning one topic but not another. And one gets the suspicion that you did not dice which topics you allow and which not but that there is a political belief behind your decision.
But Shawn already put this in better words than I can.

The concept of free speech is diametrically opposed to Bill's oft-stated policy of "my house, my rules."

A policy which is only oft-stated by others, I have never said it.

If free speech doesn't apply to ALL speech (aside from the accepted exceptions of threat speech or "yelling FIRE In a theater"), then it isn't actually FREE.

There are restrictions on what can be said on this forum. They are in the site FAQ. My opinion is that the fewer restrictions, the better.

Rather than representing freedom of speech, this sort of "you can say this, but not that" is editorial policy, pure and simple. The Editor, through his action or inaction is stating his editorial policy: In this case, that policy indicates he believes posts that deny the Holocaust on a site that otherwise restricts political discourse is acceptable.

I believe that such posts should be allowed, so that others can disagree with them and prove them wrong. That is the blessing of open debate.

The argument that the Holocaust occurred over 10 years ago doesn't apply here, IMO, as the on-going effort of fringe hate-groups to deny the Holocaust is a dismaying current political trend. Holocaust denial is definitely "current affairs" even if the Holocaust itself is not.

By that argument, then any past event which still has political connotations would be off limits. The Vietnam War? No, I think the 10-year rule should mean what it says: discussion of political events within the last ten years is not allowed.

Ok, if this is your last word, I'm out of here. I don't want anything to do with a forum that supports holocaust denial, and I don't want my name – not even my nickname – associated with it.

I accuse you of tolerating Holocaust denial while not tolerating things like 'Blasphemy' or talk about a certain other forum or a wargames show.

Maybe you need a sense of humor? Editor Julia used "blasphemy" as the explanation for DH'ing someone for a post which did, in fact, violate the "no religion" rule.

As for the decision not to allow Angel Barracks to promote his show on TMP, I think that is just common sense. The man continues to "make war" on TMP through his sock puppet accounts here and his posts on other forums, while trying to drum up support for his rival website.

Ok, if this is your last word, I'm out of here. I don't want anything to do with a forum that supports holocaust denial, and I don't want my name – not even my nickname – associated with it.

This forum does not support holocaust denial.

It honors open debate.

You allow troll bait posts, but then take punitive action against those who speak out against the trolling. Rationalize how you want, but it just comes off as being very selective in what speech is actually free.

Can't have it both ways, chief.

Nobody has ever been punished for expressing an opinion.

However, forum rules are broken when a person makes a personal attack on the person they disagree with.

Those who insult the moderators will be removed from the community.

So it is very simple: be civil, express your opinions, have open debate.

How can we tell? You delete everything.

Only things which violate forum rules (and the subsidiary comments)

If you have a question, just ask me.

Well, I can't even link to the Wargames Website – is this your idea of free speech? And the owner of the other site certainly does not wage a war against you, your site is never mentioned there.
Well, I'll leave it at this. Adios guys.

"Free Speech" goes only one way on TMP, and that is towards giving the obnoxious all the leeway, and punishing those who oppose them.

No, what usually happens is that people get fired up against what they consider to be obnoxious or offensive opinions, and then they break forum rules in their response…

Well, I can't even link to the Wargames Website – is this your idea of free speech?

Why should I allow someone to promote their rival website here on TMP?

And the owner of the other site certainly does not wage a war against you, your site is never mentioned there.

I've seen his posts on other forums, and I've seen (and Locked) his many sock puppet accounts on TMP.

I'm confused, isn't the posting of deliberately inflammatory material intended to provoke others considered 'trolling', especially when such material is bound to upset good relations within the forum?

Given Chortle's recent posts, with almost no gaming relevance whatsoever, on various Jewish conspiracies as well as the Holocaust Denial debate, have achieved precisely that, why has he at least not been DH'd?

And what possible benefit to the Forum has his contribution made? Several members who have left, voluntarily or otherwise, many others feeling distinctly uneasy about the whole dynamic of the site, the possibility of negative publicity on a wider stage – I can't see any of this doing much good for membership.

So, will there be a poll?

I believe that such posts should be allowed, so that others can disagree with them and prove them wrong. That is the blessing of open debate

You're entitled, but that is a foolish opinion to hold as a moderator of a site devoted to miniatures wargaming.

Perhaps you should update the description to read "The Last Bastion of the Free Market of Ideas" is that's what this is. Otherwise, I suggest you use better discretion.

So it is very simple: be civil, express your opinions, have open debate.

Then again, some ideas are simply not worthy of debate. Some ideas do not invite civil discourse. Those who espouse those ideas are, sadly, often not worthy of civil, open debate.

There is a whole world of factual information out there for someone who actually wants to learn about the Holocaust, so it's not about education and open debate. Unless, of course, you contend the issue is somehow in doubt.

It's ludicrous that TMP is a place where one must take every racist, crackpot, genocidal-maniac-worshipping, etc. goon as a legitimate poster.

I'm confused, isn't the posting of deliberately inflammatory material intended to provoke others considered 'trolling', especially when such material is bound to upset good relations within the forum?

Given Chortle's recent posts, with almost no gaming relevance whatsoever, on various Jewish conspiracies as well as the Holocaust Denial debate, have achieved precisely that, why has he at least not been DH'd?

Chortle and his ilk generate hits. Hits can be used to convince people that a site has a certain level of traffic and exposure for advertising.

Trolls are great for Bill. They're a protected resource.

Bill wrote the truth here:

However, forum rules are broken

THAT is true. :)

The rest of it

when a person makes a personal attack on the person they disagree with.

Is just silly at times.

If you're big enough to promote you neo-Nazi fetishes, you're big enough to take the heat for it.

There's actually nothing right, just, or honorable in defending certain people and their beliefs. It's ok to acknowledge that. Not every idea is equally valid. Not every person is either.

If we aren't having the poll, can we just expand the free speech thing so I don't have to sit in the DH next time I take a crack at cable media?

I think folks like Chortle should be allowed to express their crazyass, bigoted, tinfoil hat-wearing opinions.

I also think other folks should then be allowed to call them out as crazyass, bigoted, tinfoil hat-wearing goons.

Of course, if people are going to get DH'ed or banned, however, for responding to troll bait posters like Chortle, the Editor should just ban the troll first and save us all a lot of trouble and save TMP's reputation.

You make a lot of sense, IMHO darthfozzywig.

Hey Bill, do you remember when Paint Pig was DH'd for blasphemy? Why is that any different?

I would argue, Rebelyell2006, that blasphemy centres around an opinion but the fact of the mass murder of millions of Jews, gypsies, political ‘inconvenients', homosexuals etc by Nazi Germany (and, indeed, a fair stab at similar tactics by Stalin amongst others) are simply… well facts.

Denying them is like saying the sun doesn't shine*. Sure, we can discuss how much it shines, what the effect of too much sunlight does, whether we like the colour etc etc etc. But the sun does shine. As Darth said, anyone with access to the information/science/evidence that says that either (sunshine/holocaust) is a fallacy is probably insane (well he said 'tinfoil hat' but it amounts to the same thing, I guess).

McWong73 +1 and then some…

I'm in two minds (at least!) on all of this. Poll? No Poll? I really don't know what the best route is, to be honest: I guess I just ain't that smart.

As for whether people should be banned for being stupid, I'm with the Queen talking about Nursey from Blackadder 2:

"If being stupid were against the law, Nursie would have been in prison all her life…"

John T

* or that folks didn't walk on the moon

How can we tell? You delete everything.

Only things which violate forum rules (and the subsidiary comments)

That's the whole point!

You say that no-one has been banned, DH'd etc. for expressing an opinion. We only have your word for that. We cannot tell because you delete everything.

For example, I have the highest regard for Flecktarn. His contributions were well reasoned and very eloquent for a non-native English speaker. Suddenly he is gone, a non-person. If you point out that he's gone you get your post deleted. He is just the type of member you should be hanging on to. You say he was rude to the editors, but we don't know that.

Instead we are treated to Chortle, and the newly emerging 'Chortle' going by the name of Porkmann. It would appear that these are the type of members you want.

I would argue, Rebelyell2006, that blasphemy centres around an opinion but the fact of the mass murder of millions of Jews, gypsies, political ‘inconvenients', homosexuals etc by Nazi Germany (and, indeed, a fair stab at similar tactics by Stalin amongst others) are simply… well facts.

Oh, I agree. I just wanted to point out the irony of the Editor claiming to protect free speech of one type of bigotry while cracking down on another type. (but if you reread the archives, his decision with Paint Pig was questionable.)

And for those claiming Holocaust denialism is not recent politics, try to remember two prominent politicians who recently campaigned on it: David Duke and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. You know, the former President of Iran, who called it a hoax in a speech at the UN?

It's a current political movement with adherents in all kinds of places.

If I was actively campaigning for the Green party on TMP, I'd get my posts deleted. Why is this any different?

Fine. In theory. However, the ones getting punished are the ones speaking out against them.
"Free Speech" goes only one way on TMP, and that is towards giving the obnoxious all the leeway, and punishing those who oppose them.

Yes, I agree with you, John. It should cut both ways.

Re. Porkmann being the newly emerging Chortle: it would actually be more accurate to call him the re-emerging Bronze Goat. Those who have been around here for a few years will remember him and his "interesting" views.

It is now a Poll. Go and vote.

My grandfather saw Bergen Belsen firsthand. You can't deny reality.

Is "denialism" a proper word?

Wiki says it is.

Voted.

These days nothing would surprise me. Language has been hideously perverted.

People throw an "-ism" after words to denote a dominating ideology. I can say that I did not have roast beef and lima beans for dinner, and that would be a simple denial. Or I could deny the existence of lima beans and push historians to agree with me, and push legislators to pass laws based on my insistence of lima bean nonexistence, and that would be lima bean denialism. The English language is constantly evolving in part because there is not a ruling body that regulates the language, and in part because there are multiple distinct cultures and nations that use the language.

I wonder when "holocaust denialism" ends and "holocaust revisionism" starts?

I have voted. My first instinct was to vote against, but on reflection I understood that John was right and can't abode by protecting the so called freedom of speech of denialists while supporting the dawghousing of those that react angrily against those bigots. Therefore I've voted yes.