On Taking on Holocaust Deniers

[_Res Ipsa]

Given the recent postings by our resident holocaust denier, I wanted to say a couple of things. If you haven't encountered a hard-core conspiracy theorist before, let alone the pernicious subspecies known as holocaust denier, here are a couple of things I've learned.

First, unless you are willing to put in some time to figure out and understand the denier's argument and to research and understand why it is wrong, it's a waste of time to engage. Holocaust denial is based on smidgens of true facts, misleading distortions of true facts, and outright lies, all mixed together in a jumble that takes time and effort to untangle. Unless you've put in the time, you'll respond with something that is factually incorrect in some way, and then the denier will shift the attack from the holocaust to your ignorance/stupidity/etc. At that point, it's a total pain in the ass to get the discussion back on topic.

Second, while the leaders of the holocaust denier movement are often smart and clever, their followers are often not. Many times they just copy and paste stuff that they don't understand or haven't checked out themselves. The last thing they want to do is to drill down to the actual factual evidence. Witness the number of times Smokey has ducked a simple question about the use of ball point pen and Anne Frank's diary.

Third, it helps to think of holocaust deniers as mopologists. Both operate the same way. They believe in a vast conspiracy for which they have no evidence. And they're only tool is to find some way to dismiss all of the evidence that contradicts their denial. Their "conspiracy" functions just like God does for mopologists as the ultimate get out of jail free card.

Fourth, like mopologists, they attempt to intimidate through insult and bluster. Ignore it. If you've spent the requisite time learning the material before you start to engage, you know way more than they do. And that puts you in control no matter how much they bluster.

Fifth, understand why they reason the way they do. They're not crazy. They're simply falling prey to powerful cognitive biases we all have: (1) Patternicity -- our brains are biased towards finding patterns and will find them even in random data. They underestimate the frequency of chance and coincidence. (2) Intentionality -- our brains are biased towards concluding that an intelligent agent is responsible for the patterns we find.

When we are looking to understand or explain a set of data, our best bet is to look for the interpretation that has the best explanatory power for the data we have. That's actually what most of us do. However, in large and complex sets of facts, there will always be what we can call "anomalous" data. Anomalous data is data that is either not explained by the best fit explanation or may even appear to contradict it. This is inevitable because our access to facts is never perfect, and the more complicated the facts, the less perfect our access is.

Often, a careful investigation of what appears to be an anomalous fact reveals that it is not anomalous at all. Perhaps a witness got something wrong. Perhaps there was a rationale for an action that we overlooked. For this reason, investigating the anomalous fact is critical to determine whether it actually contradicts the best fit explanation.

Conspiracy theorists don't do that. In fact, one of our conspiracy theorists here once put it very accurately when he said that he ignores the evidence and looks only at the anomalies. They don't investigate the anomalies to try and figure out why they exist and whether they actually contradict the best fit explanation. The patternicity bias leads them to stitch apparent anomalies that are often completely unrelated into a pattern, and their internality bias leads them to create a conspiracy to explain the pattern.

That's why conspiracy theorists are impervious to evidence in support of the best-fit explanation. You could provide Smokey with mountains of evidence that millions of Jews were exterminated at Auschwitz were exterminated, and he'll respond: OK boomer. What about the swimming pool? **Shut it down** meme. The weak part of the Holocaust Denier argument is that the "anomalies" turn out to be based on false or significantly misrepresented facts. So, the most effective attack is to make them explain the factual basis for their claims and to explicitly explain why the fact actually disproves the best fit explanation. When you get down to the actual, concrete facts, they can't do it. When they start tap dancing, avoiding answering simple questions, changing the subject, or Gish Galloping, resist the temptation to respond to the new thing: relentlessly demand that they produce the evidence and explain how it "disproves" the best fit explanation. When they refuse to answer simple questions that reveal their original claim as BS, you've won the point. They'll never admit it. But they know it.

Finally, never ever accept evidence that a holocaust denier provides without evidence of its provenance. Anyone who is confident in their sources will happily identify them or provide you with a link. If the denier refuses to do so, they simply look dishonest or shady to any fair minded reader.

There is a pretty definitive analysis of holocaust denier claims about Auschwitz. https://www.hdot.org/vanpelt/# It's an expert report prepared in a famous English case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_ ... _Books_Ltd It explains the history of Auschwitz, what Auschwitz was composed of, different functions it performed over time, etc. If you'll read it, you'll understand why Smokey's arguments that there was no extermination camp at Auschwitz are simply rubbish. You'll also learn exactly how the people that Smokey is relying on distort and deny the actual evidence. It's a long read, but will help immensely if you choose to engage with holocaust deniers.

Oh, and Smokey, I'm still waiting for you to show me which diary entry purportedly written in Anne Frank's handwriting is in ball-point pen.

[_DarkHelmet]

First, unless you are willing to put in some time to figure out and understand the denier's argument and to research and understand why it is wrong, it's a waste of time to engage.

For me, I try to stop at your first point. As tempting as it is to engage, I've realized it is a complete waste of time. Holocaust deniers are worthless pieces of crap who don't deserve social interaction. These types of people have always existed on the fringes of society, but the Internet has given them a platform their forebearers never dreamed possible. The pre-internet equivelent would be trying to have a reasonable debate with the crazy guy on the street corner screaming about the end of the world. Nobody bothers. You just walk by him without making eye contact. This is how internet nut jobs should be treated as well. Sadly, they influence a small minority of people. My brother has become increasingly radicalized over the past 10 years. Now all he talks about is right-wing conspiracy theories and I find it increasingly difficult to interact with him.

[_Some Schmo]

First, unless you are willing to put in some time to figure out and understand the denier's argument and to research and understand why it is wrong, it's a waste of time to engage.

For me, I try to stop at your first point. As tempting as it is to engage, I've realized it is a complete waste of time. Holocaust deniers are worthless pieces of crap who don't deserve social interaction.

Exactly. I don't see a point. Some people are not worth attention. All you're doing is making them think the conversation is worthwhile, when it clearly isn't.

[_Res Ipsa]

I think it's perfectly fine to not engage. But I'm going to push back a little on the notion that engaging is useless or harmful. You can find lots of examples of former Neo-Nazis who wake up and understand how wrong they are and how harmful they've been. I don't know what sets that into motion -- probably different things for different people -- but showing that their claims are based on false or badly twisted facts may lead them to start thinking skeptically about the claims that they've blindly accepted. If that happens, that's a good thing.

Second, this crap gets people killed. I think I've posted about my friend who was shot and critically injured when one of these Jew Haters shot up a Jewish Day Care Center. Holocaust denial is used to justify hating Jews. Factually, it was killed off a few decades ago, and people haven't really talked about it much as a thing. Yet, here it is. Based on the exact same rubbish that was refuted years ago. Not talking about it simply lets it fester, and makes it easier for some kid like Dylan Roof to get sucked into it without knowing the true facts. And I don't think a systematic, factual, rational attack on the foundation of their claims is what validates them. I think personal attack is what they crave -- in their eyes, it justifies their hatred of Jew lovers as well as Jews. I don't think Smokey is a worthless piece of crap. He's a person who has been tragically fooled by some very dishonest people and his own brain. The hate he's carrying around with him is lots more harmful to him that it is to me. That doesn't mean I tolerate or coddle his Jew hating, which is dangerous as hell. But it also means recognizing both that he is a person just like I am and that I am vulnerable to the same cognitive biases that have ensnared him.

Finally, holocaust denial is a meme. Not in the modern sense, but in what I think is the original use by Richard Dawkins. It's an idea that is analogous to a gene. It propagates and spreads. And the internet has become one helluva vector that allows the meme to spread much more easily than in the past. Thirty years ago, you had to work to find the holocaust denier cesspool. Now, all you have to do is google "holocaust" or participate in a discussion group that values free speech, and it's right in your face.

[_Some Schmo]

I think it's perfectly fine to not engage. But I'm going to push back a little on the notion that engaging is useless or harmful. You can find lots of examples of former Neo-Nazis who wake up and understand how wrong they are and how harmful they've been. I don't know what sets that into motion -- probably different things for different people -- but showing that their claims are based on false or badly twisted facts may lead them to start thinking skeptically about the claims that they've blindly accepted. If that happens, that's a good thing.

RI, I don't know if I've ever stated this explicitly, so I'll say it now: I respect pretty much everything you have to say. Even if I don't necessarily agree with everything you write, at least I suspect that it's coming from an honest, sincere place. As far as I'm concerned, that's all that matters in terms of good faith conversations.

The other thing I'll say is that you, as a lawyer (or as a person who pursued a career in that profession), have a talent for persuasion. I'm often highly impressed with your ability to lead a person to a particular point of view. You have changed my mind on several occasions. It doesn't surprise me that you would take on the task of disabusing the nonsense coming from people like Smokey. You're good at it.

So my message is, I think you are well suited to take on people like this, and you make a good case for why it's important to do so.

I, on the other hand, don't feel equipped necessarily to take on that task (mostly out of a lack of interest). It's better that people like me stay out of that fray. I'm not going to help. I have too much contempt for the denier point of view to be an effective advocate.

[_Res Ipsa]

I think it's perfectly fine to not engage. But I'm going to push back a little on the notion that engaging is useless or harmful. You can find lots of examples of former Neo-Nazis who wake up and understand how wrong they are and how harmful they've been. I don't know what sets that into motion -- probably different things for different people -- but showing that their claims are based on false or badly twisted facts may lead them to start thinking skeptically about the claims that they've blindly accepted. If that happens, that's a good thing.

RI, I don't know if I've ever stated this explicitly, so I'll say it now: I respect pretty much everything you have to say. Even if I don't necessarily agree with everything you write, at least I suspect that it's coming from an honest, sincere place. As far as I'm concerned, that's all that matters in terms of good faith conversations.

The other thing I'll say is that you, as a lawyer (or as a person who pursued a career in that profession), have a talent for persuasion. I'm often highly impressed with your ability to lead a person to a particular point of view. You have changed my mind on several occasions. It doesn't surprise me that you would take on the task of disabusing the nonsense coming from people like Smokey. You're good at it.

So my message is, I think you are well suited to take on people like this, and you make a good case for why it's important to do so.

I, on the other hand, don't feel equipped necessarily to take on that task (mostly out of a lack of interest). It's better that people like me stay out of that fray. I'm not going to help. I have too much contempt for the denier point of view to be an effective advocate.

You've got me blushing here in my basement. Whatever it is I may be good at, receiving compliments isn't one of them. I really, really, really appreciate your kind words. If you've found some of my electronic scribblings helpful, that's very cool. Thank you.

[_Some Schmo]

You've got me blushing here in my basement. Whatever it is I may be good at, receiving compliments isn't one of them. I really, really, really appreciate your kind words. If you've found some of my electronic scribblings helpful, that's very cool. Thank you.

You're welcome. I meant every word.

[_huckelberry]

As Res Ipsa reminds us,
"“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
....................................................................
I think Smokey's comments are so vague and pretentious that I would doubt he is an actual holocaust denier but he loves the pose. Otherwise why such lame arguments? He appears to have little interest in the difference between true and false.

He proposes that Anne Franks book was written after she died. If that were so it would be a literary curiosity but it would have no meaning for the reality of Nazi final solution. There is a mountain of much more solid evidence which precedes the book. Realizing that Smokey backs t up with some clips from a well understood Nazi show piece filmed for public opinion. Ask the American GIs who first went into the camps about the gardens and symphonies.

I did decide to check about Anne out of curiosity. Several sources agreed on basics. Wikapedia will do. The diary consists of a autograph book ,two notebooks and 360 pages of loose papers. Clearly there was editing done prior to its first publication in 1947, importantly before the false date Smokey supplied.Anne Franke herself made a second version in 1944 upon the loose papers.

Hey Smokey, I admit I can think of one good thing Hitler did, after all nobody is all bad. He sent millions of Nazis to their death on the eastern front. Go to Go to.

[_Gunnar]

Hey Smokey, I admit I can think of one good thing Hitler did, after all nobody is all bad. He sent millions of Nazis to their death on the eastern front. Go to Go to.

Millions of soldiers, anyway. How many of them were really Nazis? How many of them do you think really wanted to participate in Hitler's madness? Were they permitted any choice in the matter? Of course, it must be admitted that it would have been much worse for the allies, had those troops been sent in the opposite direction!

[_Res Ipsa]

Smokey certainly presents as the person Hannah Arendt described in the quote I chose for my sig line. He also chooses to present as a Jew-hating holocaust denier. I take him at his word.