Memory Hole 2 Forum only - Moderation Requests (2021)

This board is open for all subject matters. Post information and discussion materials about open-debate and censorship on other boards (including this one) here. Memory Hole 2 is a RODOH subforum for alternate perspectives.
User avatar
Depth Check
Site Moderator
Posts: 1183
Joined: 15 Jun 2012, 11:49
Contact:

Memory Hole 2 Forum only - Moderation Requests (2021)

Post by Depth Check »

Please post matters related to Memory Hole 2 Moderation requests here.

Thank you

:)
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 33560
Joined: 07 Mar 2014, 17:00
Contact:

Re: Memory Hole 2 Forum only - Moderation Requests (2021)

Post by Nessie »

How does this work?

https://www.rodoh.us/

"Welcome to RODOH!
RODOH is: Real Open-Debate on the Holocaust. For Believers, Deniers, Defenders, and Skeptics."

https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?p=191907#p191907

"Please desist from referring to opponents as deniers, and opposing arguments as denial."

Holocaust denial is just a term, which reasonably refers to people who deny that there was a planned action by the Nazis that included mass gassings. To deny something happened is denial. That is factual, not disparaging.

If the term denial is not to be used, what is an acceptable term for denying something happened? Can we use synonyms, such as Holocaust opposer, disclaimer, disputer?
Turnagain
Posts: 11887
Joined: 17 Jun 2014, 23:44
Contact:

Re: Memory Hole 2 Forum only - Moderation Requests (2021)

Post by Turnagain »

Nessie wrote:
If the term denial is not to be used, what is an acceptable term for denying something happened?
Try "truther".
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 33560
Joined: 07 Mar 2014, 17:00
Contact:

Re: Memory Hole 2 Forum only - Moderation Requests (2021)

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote: 29 Jun 2021, 20:11 Nessie wrote:
If the term denial is not to be used, what is an acceptable term for denying something happened?
Try "truther".
But how do we discuss that you deny various events happened, without using the term denial or denier? What is wrong with the term anyway, since it is used by Scott on the RODOH main page?
User avatar
been-there
Posts: 10772
Joined: 30 Apr 2013, 08:59

Re: Memory Hole 2 Forum only - Moderation Requests (2021)

Post by been-there »

Nessie wrote: 29 Jun 2021, 19:16 How does this work?

https://www.rodoh.us/

"Welcome to RODOH!
RODOH is: Real Open-Debate on the Holocaust. For Believers, Deniers, Defenders, and Skeptics."

https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?p=191907#p191907

"Please desist from referring to opponents as deniers, and opposing arguments as denial, without good cause".

Holocaust denial is just a term, which reasonably refers to people who deny that there was a planned action by the Nazis that included mass gassings. To deny something happened is denial. That is factual, not disparaging.

If the term denial is not to be used, what is an acceptable term for denying something happened? Can we use synonyms, such as Holocaust opposer, disclaimer, disputer?
What an unintelligent, ignorant complaint.

1. Somebody who denies something happened can fairly be called a ‘denier’ of that. And there are people who deny the entirety of what is vaguely called ‘the holocaust’. But I have never come across any such person at RODOH.

2. Then there are others who DO deny specific aspects of the ill-defined, enforced narrative called ‘the holocaust’. But that doesn’t mean such people deny all of it, so they cannot fairly be called ‘deniers’ of the entirety of it.

3. Then there are people who merely question aspects of the nebulous Holocaust narrative. So they do NOT deny any of it.
And such people definitely do not deny all of it.
So none of the second two classes of people can fairly be called ‘deniers’ of the entirety of it.

And the RODOH description makes it clear it is open to people with ALL understandings: whether believers, deniers, defenders, skeptics. But that OBVIOUSLY doesn’t mean the categories are interchangeable and apply to everyone equally. :roll:

This is so obvious and basic that you are further proving what a retarded person you are. And if I had any say in the matter you would be permanently banned for being the the mentally-impaired, waste-of-time that you are.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous
Turnagain
Posts: 11887
Joined: 17 Jun 2014, 23:44
Contact:

Re: Memory Hole 2 Forum only - Moderation Requests (2021)

Post by Turnagain »

Nessie wrote:
But how do we discuss that you deny various events happened, without using the term denial or denier?
By simply saying that I tell the truth about various events. Like your claim that burned bone fragments can be identified as human in origin by just looking at them. The truth is that they can't be identified in that manner.
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 33560
Joined: 07 Mar 2014, 17:00
Contact:

Re: Memory Hole 2 Forum only - Moderation Requests (2021)

Post by Nessie »

been-there wrote: 29 Jun 2021, 20:23
Nessie wrote: 29 Jun 2021, 19:16 How does this work?

https://www.rodoh.us/

"Welcome to RODOH!
RODOH is: Real Open-Debate on the Holocaust. For Believers, Deniers, Defenders, and Skeptics."

https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?p=191907#p191907

"Please desist from referring to opponents as deniers, and opposing arguments as denial, without good cause".

Holocaust denial is just a term, which reasonably refers to people who deny that there was a planned action by the Nazis that included mass gassings. To deny something happened is denial. That is factual, not disparaging.

If the term denial is not to be used, what is an acceptable term for denying something happened? Can we use synonyms, such as Holocaust opposer, disclaimer, disputer?
What an unintelligent, ignorant complaint.

1. Somebody who denies something happened can fairly be called a ‘denier’ of that. And there are people who deny the entirety of what is vaguely called ‘the holocaust’. But I have never come across any such person at RODOH.

2.Then there are others who DO deny specific aspects of the ill-defined, enforced narrative called ‘the holocaust’. But that doesn’t mean such people deny all of it, so they cannot fairly be called ‘deniers’ of the entirety of it.

3. Then there are people who merely question aspects of the nebulous Holocaust narrative. So they do NOT deny any of it.
And such people definitely do not deny all of it.
So none of the second two classes of people can fairly be called ‘deniers’ of the entirety of it.
Like many terms, denier or denial is not set in stone and everyone knows it covers a multitude of beliefs and claims. There is argument and disagreement amongst historians as to what happened, but underlying that, is agreement that there were mass gassings. Amongst those who dispute that, there is also disagreement, but there is also agreement that much of what is claimed by historians about the Holocaust is being denied as untrue.
And the RODOH description makes it clear it is open to people with ALL understandings: whether believers, deniers, defenders, skeptics. But that OBVIOUSLY doesn’t mean the categories are interchangeable and apply to everyone equally. :roll:
Hence I refer to some, such as yourself, as a revisionist. I do make it clear there are differences, as you accept there were limited gassings.
This is so obvious and basic that you are further proving what a retarded person you are. And if I had any say in the matter you would be permanently banned for being the the mentally-impaired, waste-of-time that you are.
Which totally goes against what this forum stands for, an open, polite debate about the Holocaust. If you are unhappy about that, it is you who should leave.
User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 2574
Joined: 15 May 2012, 02:43
Location: USA, West of the Pecos
Contact:

Re: Memory Hole 2 Forum only - Moderation Requests (2021)

Post by Scott »

Hi all, Greetings from Idaho.

I am on vacation and have limited access to Internet but I'll weigh in on this.

Our late colleague, Dr. Robert Countess preferred the term Negationist if "hard R" Revisionist could not be used.

Personally, I'm okay with the term Denial or Denier. However, the hard D term should not be an argument in itself. Best not to wear it out.

Try to be cautious any time that you are addressing your discussion opponent directly. So if you must say Denier, please use it judiciously, especially if you are addressing another poster directly.

"Deniers" usually prefer to be called "Revisionists" anyway, so why not that?

Thanks
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 33560
Joined: 07 Mar 2014, 17:00
Contact:

Re: Memory Hole 2 Forum only - Moderation Requests (2021)

Post by Nessie »

My problem with calling people revisionists, is that many are not revising the history of certain camps. Indeed, they refuse to say what happened. Instead, all they do is deny mass gassings. If someone is prepared to say what did happen and can provide evidence as to what happened, I am OK with the term revisionist or rev for short. But, that has to be so long as it can also be pointed out when that involves denying the claims made by many witnesses and historians about mass gassings and shootings. If someone states he denies mass gassings, then words such as denial and denying and even denier can be used in the conversation. I will refrain from specifically calling anyone a Holocaust denier, as a general term, even though it has never been used by me in a derogatory way.
User avatar
been-there
Posts: 10772
Joined: 30 Apr 2013, 08:59

Re: Memory Hole 2 Forum only - Moderation Requests (2021)

Post by been-there »

Suppose someone says they are an athiest. Would it be fair — and even intelligent — to constantly refer to them as a ‘God denier’?

I think the answer is obvious. Only a person who is an unreasonable and fanatical believer in some kind of transcendent deity would insist all others with doubts about that should be called ‘God deniers’.

E.g. Richard Dawkins is probably one of the most famous athiests. He even wrote a book called ‘the God delusion’. But when pushed he concedes that he is an agnostic. In other words, he recognises that ultimately he doesn’t know — and cannot know conclusively — whether there is some transcendent, personal, creative force behind the material phenomena we know of as the cosmos.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, only a bigoted, stupid, ignorant person would insist on calling Dawkins a “denier” despite his admitted agnosticism.

It is exactly the same here with this historical narrative.
There are various degrees of skepticism regarding what passes as ‘holocaust’ history. This is an obvious fact. To lump them all together as ‘holocaust deniers’ merely shows the ignorance, bigotry and unintelligent fanaticism of the person’s belief who does that. Which ironically is most people on the planet — due to their ignorance of the detail and the successful indoctrination campaign everyone is subjected to from early childhood.
But that doesn’t mean we have to allow such narrow-minded stupidity here, in a forum devoted to discussing those details.
Nor do I think we should we allow people to ignore the revisionist appeal to reason and fact by constantly misrepresenting that as “denial”.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous
Post Reply