Anti-revisionists of CODOH: prove that you're serious, steelman the revisionist position

[curioussoul]

This is something I constantly see revisionists do, but never the other way around. If you read revisionist literature, you'll notice that revisionists will often steelman the opposing side, interpret evidence in the most favorable way possible for their opponents, and play devil's advocate. Steelmanning is an intellectual challenge to (hopefully) strengthen your own position by exploring different viewpoints.

This is something I've never, ever, seen an anti-revisionist debater or orthodox historian do. To them, it's crucial to categorically describe Holocaust revisionism as mental illness, flat earthism, Nazism, etc. Legitimizing any revisionist argument in any way is to cede too much ground. This has been admitted by leading Holocaust historians, and is one of the reasons mainstream scholars no longer engage in any way with revisionism, despite failed attempts during the 90's and early 2000's.

So my challenge to the anti-revisionists on this forum is this: steelman the revisionist position and prove that you're actually serious. Describe, in your opinion, the strongest revisionist argument in the most favorable way you can.

For those who don't know what steelmanning is, it's essentially the opposite of a strawmanning. Instead of misrepresenting your opponent's arguments or lying about their intentions, you assume the best of intentions and describe their strongest argument.

[bombsaway]

Revisionism is hard to steelman on high level, because of the focus on individual arguments (saying this piece of evidence is bad, this witness compromised, gassing impossible here, there). But maybe I can tell you what I think the most defensible high level narrative would be -

I think the evidence of shootings in the east is so profuse you can't really say there wasn't a genocide there. That is Rudolph's position, I believe, if judging from the Jake Shields "Debate". What he doesn't believe in is the mass killings via gas chamber, which separates him from Ivring et al, and probably is the baseline requirement for being a true revisionist. Rudolph goes "wrong" in his thinking (if I'm not mistaken) that the large scale conspiracy angle isn't necessary. Most posters on this board I believe agree with that. It's hard to imagine all the false confessions otherwise. The resettlement evidence is far too vast so you need a body to suppress it. The people at the sites would have to know that there's "nothing" under them. I call this conspiracy large scale because it would have to exist both in the Soviet Union and in the West. Probably all of this is unthinkable without a malevolent (in terms of propensity for deceit and violation of laws and norms) and extremely powerful World Jewry. I don't think Germar believes that.

So my most defensible revisionism is Germar with a greater conspiracy in mind.

Naturally it goes without saying that there isn't really much for me to argue with here. It's just a high level story. The issue is the interpretation of evidence which may lead to these conclusions. The big meta weakness in revisionism - which comes down to the fact that your main claims are not substantiated by evidence - I don't think there's any way around that. You probably have to argue that the historiography is too evidence based and should become more possibility based.

[Nessie]

This is something I constantly see revisionists do, but never the other way around. If you read revisionist literature, you'll notice that revisionists will often steelman the opposing side, interpret evidence in the most favorable way possible for their opponents, and play devil's advocate. Steelmanning is an intellectual challenge to (hopefully) strengthen your own position by exploring different viewpoints.

This is something I've never, ever, seen an anti-revisionist debater or orthodox historian do. To them, it's crucial to categorically describe Holocaust revisionism as mental illness, flat earthism, Nazism, etc.

The person who mostly attacks others claiming mental deficiencies, is Wahrheitssucher. It is reasonable to equate the denying of many evidenced and proven events during the Holocaust, with the flat earthers denying the evidence the earth is round. Many so-called revisionists do openly support Nazism.

Legitimizing any revisionist argument in any way is to cede too much ground. This has been admitted by leading Holocaust historians, and is one of the reasons mainstream scholars no longer engage in any way with revisionism, despite failed attempts during the 90's and early 2000's.

So my challenge to the anti-revisionists on this forum is this: steelman the revisionist position and prove that you're actually serious. Describe, in your opinion, the strongest revisionist argument in the most favorable way you can.

For those who don't know what steelmanning is, it's essentially the opposite of a strawmanning. Instead of misrepresenting your opponent's arguments or lying about their intentions, you assume the best of intentions and describe their strongest argument.

I cannot think of any strong argument by so-called revisionists. Their position, as historical revisionists, is bogus. Not all of the following are arguments are made by all so-called revisionists. They are common arguments, made here and that I have seen elsewhere.

The argument that gassings in the Leichenkellers, or mass graves at the AR camps and the mass pyres, were not physically possible, therefore they did not happen, is logically and evidentially flawed, for reasons I have been into on multiple occasions.

The argument that the burden of proof is entirely on those who claim mass gassings etc, is wrong, since there is a burden of proof on the claim that the Leichenkellers were not used for gassings. It is still a claim that needs to be evidenced. I know how to go about evidencing the Leichenkellers were not used as gas chambers, 1943-4. It is clear that so-called revisionists do not, which speaks to their inexperience and disinterest in serious investigation.

The argument that 100% of the eyewitnesses who worked inside the AR camps, Chelmno and the A-B Kremas lied, is highly unlikely and unsupported by the evidence. It is also an argument that some so-called revisionists deny they make, as they try to claim people who did not work inside those places were eyewitnesses and they fail to name a single witness they believe.

The arguments that so-called revisionists do not need to evidence and prove what happened to the millions of Jews they claim were not killed, and answer the question, "where do they go?" is historically and evidentially flawed. You cannot claim to be a historical revisionist and then fail to provide an evidenced, chronological alternative history. Cheap claims of, they went where they went, or leaving chronological gaps, just prove that so-called Holocaust revisionists are really just Holocaust deniers and not serious historians or investigators. A claim that the killing of millions was a hoax, needs to be evidenced.

Common arguments I see on X are often just outright lies, such as there is no evidence of gassings, or no traces of HCN have been found inside the Kremas. Or they are frankly idiotic arguments, such as how could the Nazis gas people using leaky wooden doors, that could be opened from the inside, or a door with a glass window? Those door arguments are signs the arguer has limited ability to fact check and evidence and they are easily duped. The arguments based on the almanac that suggests the world population of Jews grew during WWII, the IRC list of camps with a death toll of 271k and that Auschwitz had a swimming pool, are further examples of an inability to do the most basic of research.

I agree with bombsaway, when he said "Revisionism is hard to steelman on high level, because of the focus on individual arguments (saying this piece of evidence is bad, this witness compromised, gassing impossible here, there)."

[HansHill]

So my challenge to the anti-revisionists on this forum is this: steelman the revisionist position and prove that you're actually serious. Describe, in your opinion, the strongest revisionist argument in the most favorable way you can.

I cannot

Reported.

This user has recently been relegated to the slop forum for cluttering up the board, wandering aimlessly off topic, and offering up a catastrophic signal:noise ratio.

It looks like he has recently been allowed back into the main forum and already is repeating the same garbage.

OP: Hi please do X
Nessie: No, anyway blah blah blah i love the Holocaust

If this was a trial run to see could Nessie adhere to basic rules of engagement i think its clear he has failed.

[Nessie]

So my challenge to the anti-revisionists on this forum is this: steelman the revisionist position and prove that you're actually serious. Describe, in your opinion, the strongest revisionist argument in the most favorable way you can.

I cannot

Reported.

This user has recently been relegated to the slop forum for cluttering up the board, wandering aimlessly off topic, and offering up a catastrophic signal:noise ratio.

It looks like he has recently been allowed back into the main forum and already is repeating the same garbage.

OP: Hi please do X
Nessie: No, anyway blah blah blah i love the Holocaust

If this was a trial run to see could Nessie adhere to basic rules of engagement i think its clear he has failed.

The challenge is to steelman the strongest argument. It has been answered in a way you do not like, but the question has been answered. Sorry you do not like certain uncomfortable for you answers and want me to be censored.

[Archie]

So my challenge to the anti-revisionists on this forum is this: steelman the revisionist position and prove that you're actually serious. Describe, in your opinion, the strongest revisionist argument in the most favorable way you can.

I cannot

Reported.

This user has recently been relegated to the slop forum for cluttering up the board, wandering aimlessly off topic, and offering up a catastrophic signal:noise ratio.

It looks like he has recently been allowed back into the main forum and already is repeating the same garbage.

OP: Hi please do X
Nessie: No, anyway blah blah blah i love the Holocaust

If this was a trial run to see could Nessie adhere to basic rules of engagement i think its clear he has failed.

The challenge is to steelman the strongest argument. It has been answered in a way you do not like, but the question has been answered. Sorry you do not like certain uncomfortable for you answers and want me to be censored.

You are such a massive hypocrite.

In virtually every exchange you complain about "straw-manning" when you are the egregious straw-manner of all-time.

Here is Nessie's prior answer to this question, preserved for posterity.
viewtopic.php?p=5649#p5649

[Nessie]

You are such a massive hypocrite.

In virtually every exchange you complain about "straw-manning" when you are the egregious straw-manner of all-time.

Here is Nessie's prior answer to this question, preserved for posterity.
viewtopic.php?p=5649#p5649

How is this;



...and my answer above, straw-manning so-called revisionism?

[Archie]

It's funny that Nessie refers to being in Quarantine as being "censored." He is free to post whatever he wants over there. There is absolutely nothing stopping him from proving the Holocaust over there. Interestingly, we see that he does not even try to do this. Rather, he merely quotes and replies to comments by other people elsewhere on the forum. This is because Nessie is unable to sustain any sort of real argument. His style is completely reactive.

I recall one time I challenged Nessie to write an essay (of whatever length, but I think 5,000-10,000 words would be reasonable) putting forth the best possible case for his position. (I would extend this same challenge to bombsaway as well). Nessie has made at least 40,000 posts on the Holocaust forums, probably millions of words of text. Most of which was lost when RODOH went down. I said to him, Nessie, why not synthesize all your best material so you don't have to repeat yourself all day every day on the forums? The reasons he is unwilling and unable to do this, 1) he lacks the skill and knows that attempting to communicate his ideas in long-form would be a disaster, 2) his real purpose on the forums is to attempt to bury everyone else's posts with endless replies.

I told Nessie (and the offer still stands) that if he were to write such an essay, I would write one as well (putting forward a steelman case FOR the Holocaust, even though I don't believe in it). I guarantee mine would be better.

[HansHill]

Let me also just add, that to accuse Nessie of being a sloppy, bloviating off-topic poster with poor signal:noise ratio is much more charitable than the alternative. The alternative is, he is unable to steelman a position he has studied and debated for decades.

I obviously (and personally) think its the latter, but i will give him benefit of the doubt that its the former. Were it to be the latter, it would likely be caused by (again in my personal opinion) that he lacks the critical thinking skills, as evidenced by being a disastrously unimpressive person. Again that’s simply my opinion so i will keep that private.

“Muh censorship”

Nessie if it were up to me, you would indeed be censored from this website at the IP level. You comically told us once you dont know how to use a VPN so this actually would work, and afford the serious posters here more comfort, time, space and avenues to develop complex and intricate dialogues. I would approach it from the position of; this board doesnt owe you anything, in fact you owe us thousands of cumulative wasted hours.

Fortunately, its not up to me, and the silver lining in all of this, is that you tee us up for repeated dunks and give us a platform to dispel Orthodoxy 101 ad infinitum.

Now kindly apologise to OP for destroying his thread

[Nessie]

The thread is about steelmanning the so-called revisionist position, describing its strongest argument. Two of us have replied to say that, for bombsaway it is very hard and for me, that it cannot be done. I then went into more detail than a previous answer that I described as a simple summary, where I steel man so-called revisionist arguments, such as there were no mass gassings as they were a physical impossibility and explained why they are poor.

Archie, rather than countering my points, calls them strawmen, without explaining why and then wants me to prove the Holocaust, as if I have never linked to any of the evidence that is used to prove it. He knows that the best possible case, for my position, is that it is based on corroborating, contemporaneous, chronological evidence. I use evidence rather than argument, as all historians do, to prove what happened.

I would be interested in a steelman case for the Holocaust from you, here if that is not too off topic.

[Nessie]

Let me also just add, that to accuse Nessie of being a sloppy, bloviating off-topic poster with poor signal:noise ratio is much more charitable than the alternative. The alternative is, he is unable to steelman a position he has studied and debated for decades.

I can steelman the so-called revisionism, I do it all the time, by pointing out it is not actual historical revision and tackling the arguments it makes.

I obviously (and personally) think its the latter, but i will give him benefit of the doubt that its the former. Were it to be the latter, it would likely be caused by (again in my personal opinion) that he lacks the critical thinking skills, as evidenced by being a disastrously unimpressive person. Again that’s simply my opinion so i will keep that private.

“Muh censorship”

Nessie if it were up to me, you would indeed be censored from this website at the IP level. You comically told us once you dont know how to use a VPN so this actually would work, and afford the serious posters here more comfort, time, space and avenues to develop complex and intricate dialogues. I would approach it from the position of; this board doesnt owe you anything, in fact you owe us thousands of cumulative wasted hours.

Fortunately, its not up to me, and the silver lining in all of this, is that you tee us up for repeated dunks and give us a platform to dispel Orthodoxy 101 ad infinitum.

Now kindly apologise to OP for destroying his thread

I have not destroyed the thread, I have answered the OP question and explained why there is no strongest revisionist argument for me to describe, as they are all weak.

[Archie]

The thread is about steelmanning the so-called revisionist position, describing its strongest argument. Two of us have replied to say that, for bombsaway it is very hard and for me, that it cannot be done. I then went into more detail than a previous answer that I described as a simple summary, where I steel man so-called revisionist arguments, such as there were no mass gassings as they were a physical impossibility and explained why they are poor.

Archie, rather than countering my points, calls them strawmen, without explaining why and then wants me to prove the Holocaust, as if I have never linked to any of the evidence that is used to prove it. He knows that the best possible case, for my position, is that it is based on corroborating, contemporaneous, chronological evidence. I use evidence rather than argument, as all historians do, to prove what happened.

I would be interested in a steelman case for the Holocaust from you, here if that is not too off topic.

It would be off-topic in this thread. But feel free to post a substantial essay putting forth your best case for the Holocaust over in Quarantine. If you do so, I will do a steelman case for the Holocaust. Last time I made you this offer you refused because you are unable or unwilling to write an essay. But the offer still stands. And I will extend the same offer to bombsaway, as well.

[Archie]

Nessie is doing Michael Scott from the Office.

Q: What are your greatest weaknesses?

A: I work too hard, I care too much, and I'm too invested in my job.

Q: Okaaay. And your strengths?

A: Well, my weaknesses are actually strengths.

[Archie]

You are such a massive hypocrite.

In virtually every exchange you complain about "straw-manning" when you are the egregious straw-manner of all-time.

Here is Nessie's prior answer to this question, preserved for posterity.
viewtopic.php?p=5649#p5649

How is this;



...and my answer above, straw-manning so-called revisionism?

For ease, here is the text of your "steelman" case for revisionism.

There are various summaries of the denier/revisionist case, that I and many others use. In its most simple form;

- there were no mass gassings

The slightly more detailed version of that, and the one I use the most, is the transit camp theory;

- the people sent on mass transports to the AR camps, or A-B, were not gassed and left those places to go elsewhere.

There is a variation to that of, which leaves many unanswered questions as to what happened;

- it is not certain there were mass transports to the AR camps, or A-B.

There are some deniers who suggest they do know what happened, such as claims the Kremas were used as delousing centres or for mass showering and that the AR camps were used as transit camps, hygiene stops or for property seizure.

If you combined that, you end up with the denier argument being, there are theories as to what happened, but we do know is that there were no mass gassings at the AR camps and A-B Kremas.

"There were no mass gassings" isn't an argument. That's a CONCLUSION. You need to provide the support for that conclusion. There were no mass gassings BECAUSE of reasons A, B, C, D. That you can't tell the difference between a conclusion and the supporting arguments is a recurring fault of yours. This might explain why you are so fond of circular reasoning.

[Archie]

Revisionism is hard to steelman on high level, because of the focus on individual arguments (saying this piece of evidence is bad, this witness compromised, gassing impossible here, there). But maybe I can tell you what I think the most defensible high level narrative would be -

I think the evidence of shootings in the east is so profuse you can't really say there wasn't a genocide there. That is Rudolph's position, I believe, if judging from the Jake Shields "Debate". What he doesn't believe in is the mass killings via gas chamber, which separates him from Ivring et al, and probably is the baseline requirement for being a true revisionist. Rudolph goes "wrong" in his thinking (if I'm not mistaken) that the large scale conspiracy angle isn't necessary. Most posters on this board I believe agree with that. It's hard to imagine all the false confessions otherwise. The resettlement evidence is far too vast so you need a body to suppress it. The people at the sites would have to know that there's "nothing" under them. I call this conspiracy large scale because it would have to exist both in the Soviet Union and in the West. Probably all of this is unthinkable without a malevolent (in terms of propensity for deceit and violation of laws and norms) and extremely powerful World Jewry. I don't think Germar believes that.

So my most defensible revisionism is Germar with a greater conspiracy in mind.

Naturally it goes without saying that there isn't really much for me to argue with here. It's just a high level story. The issue is the interpretation of evidence which may lead to these conclusions. The big meta weakness in revisionism - which comes down to the fact that your main claims are not substantiated by evidence - I don't think there's any way around that. You probably have to argue that the historiography is too evidence based and should become more possibility based.

I would give this an F. No revisionist would agree that this is a good representation of revisionist thought.

Predictably, bombs has used this exercise as an excuse to repackage his usual arguments about revisionism being a wacky conspiracy theory. He lacks the intellectual seriousness to do the exercise for real.