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

[pilgrimofdark]

Challenge: choose any one revisionist argument and steelman it -- attempt to summarize it as charitably and accurately as you can -- even though we understand you don't believe it and strongly disagree with it.

Response: "flat earthers, Nazi supporters, bogus, flawed, wrong, inexperience, disinterested, not serious, cheap, deniers, outright lies, easily duped, limited ability."

This is obviously a passive-aggressive form of bullying.

It's also a flagrant violation of the forum rule to "observe the principle of charity" in a post specifically challenging respondents to be charitable, as well as an admission that the respondent has no intention of following the rule and will continue to engage in this passive-aggressive bullying tactic.

Because you're a Nazi supporter, I can do no better than to call you cheap. That's me being as charitable as I can. Maybe you're simply easily duped, but it's your fault I can do no better. Maybe if you weren't such an outright liar, I could be nicer to you. Until then, your limited ability forces me to call out your bogus flaws. Sorry your inexperience does not allow you to agree that this is the only correct answer. Maybe you shouldn't be so uncomfortable. You're bullying me, denier.

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

Missed opportunity to call the Quarantine forum Arbeitslager CöDöH.

[Stubble]

Be a stalag, wouldn't it?

Also, I loled entirely too hard at the rest of that post pilgrimofdark, kudos.

[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.

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.

There's no way to explain revisionism without speaking of large scale conspiracy (not wacky). The suppression of all evidence of resettlement is the biggest tell. Jews would have involved with this, since it would encompass the west + USSR. I guess one strategy for revisionists would be to avoid discussion about this, which might strategically sound. The best strategy for revisionists is probably to focus on the outrageousness, from psychological level, of "ordinary men", loving husbands and so forth, participating in orderly mass murder of civilians, and then the science stuff. There is no revisionist high level position that can be sufficiently described (other than to say the testimonies are too contradictory, the science is impossible, the documents are lacking). Within the revisionist frame it is a systematic dismantling of the major and minor tenants of the orthodox holocaust story, or at least the overtly genocidal side of that story. The science stuff also can be pretty convincing, and the strongest scientific argument is that HCN was detected in the gas chamber walls far less than would be expected. This is a problem for orthodoxy, because they have to rely on possibility to answer it. Eg I would say it is most likely that the walls were specially painted to prevent discoloration similar to what you see at Dachau, but I don't have direct evidence of that.

I think this is an eminently reasonable response.

[HansHill]

There's no way to explain revisionism without speaking of large scale conspiracy (not wacky).

How are you fumbling this hard Bombsaway? This is pathetic, and is why people don't really respect you (no offense).,

Here I'll give you some help. In one of CJ's stupid Chemistry threads, you retreated to the opinion that the lack of PB was due to a sealant / whitewash combination.

There's your steelman, genius.

"The absence of Prussian Blue asks uncomfortable questions about the chemical reactions that are expected to have happened, and addressing these challenges requires unsubstantiated and untestable opinions"

That wasn't hard, was it? For God's sake

[bombsaway]

There's no way to explain revisionism without speaking of large scale conspiracy (not wacky).

How are you fumbling this hard Bombsaway? This is pathetic, and is why people don't really respect you (no offense).,

Here I'll give you some help. In one of CJ's stupid Chemistry threads, you retreated to the opinion that the lack of PB was due to a sealant / whitewash combination.

There's your steelman, genius.

"The absence of Prussian Blue asks uncomfortable questions about the chemical reactions that are expected to have happened, and addressing these challenges requires unsubstantiated and untestable opinions"

That wasn't hard, was it? For God's sake

Did you miss this in my response right above

". The science stuff also can be pretty convincing, and the strongest scientific argument is that HCN was detected in the gas chamber walls far less than would be expected. This is a problem for orthodoxy, because they have to rely on possibility to answer it. Eg I would say it is most likely that the walls were specially painted to prevent discoloration similar to what you see at Dachau, but I don't have direct evidence of that."

lack of prussian blue is certainly part of this, and orthodoxy has to rely on possibility to answer why it isn't there

[HansHill]

Did you miss this in my response right above

No, what I said is, that right there IS your steelman. You are fumbling your own steelman by wellpoisoning it in the crib with your conspiracy garbage. A well poisoned steelman, is basically another strawman.

Your steelman should stand by itself, in this instance, alone from that conspiracy crap.

[bombsaway]

Did you miss this in my response right above

No, what I said is, that right there IS your steelman. You are fumbling your own steelman by wellpoisoning it in the crib with your conspiracy garbage. A well poisoned steelman, is basically another strawman.

Your steelman should stand by itself, in this instance, alone from that conspiracy crap.

Why do you call it crap? Why else is there next to no evidence for revisionisms main assertions?

Victors control the evidence = conspiracy, no way around that

Germar's position is weakened precisely because he ignores this aspect to a large extent

[bombsaway]

I could probably keep going with this steelman by saying the conspiracy is proven by the existence of self-evidently bogus witness statements and documents, which cannot be explained in any way other than fabrication.

I understand the revisionist position perfectly believe me, I could easily act as a revisionist on this board and no one would know the difference

[Callafangers]

I could probably keep going with this steelman by saying the conspiracy is proven by the existence of self-evidently bogus witness statements and documents, which cannot be explained in any way other than fabrication.

I understand the revisionist position perfectly believe me, I could easily act as a revisionist on this board and no one would know the difference

Yes, your practice in acting as a non-rabbi would serve you well, here.

spb.jpg (164.72 KiB) Viewed 153 times

[Wahrheitssucher]

… Why is there next to no evidence for revisionisms main assertions?

…I understand the revisionist position perfectly believe me,
I could easily act as a revisionist on this board and no one would know the difference

Anybody else noticing that this one is starting to sound more and more like ConfusedJew?

[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.

There's no way to explain revisionism without speaking of large scale conspiracy (not wacky). The suppression of all evidence of resettlement is the biggest tell. Jews would have involved with this, since it would encompass the west + USSR. I guess one strategy for revisionists would be to avoid discussion about this, which might strategically sound. The best strategy for revisionists is probably to focus on the outrageousness, from psychological level, of "ordinary men", loving husbands and so forth, participating in orderly mass murder of civilians, and then the science stuff. There is no revisionist high level position that can be sufficiently described (other than to say the testimonies are too contradictory, the science is impossible, the documents are lacking). Within the revisionist frame it is a systematic dismantling of the major and minor tenants of the orthodox holocaust story, or at least the overtly genocidal side of that story. The science stuff also can be pretty convincing, and the strongest scientific argument is that HCN was detected in the gas chamber walls far less than would be expected. This is a problem for orthodoxy, because they have to rely on possibility to answer it. Eg I would say it is most likely that the walls were specially painted to prevent discoloration similar to what you see at Dachau, but I don't have direct evidence of that.

I think this is an eminently reasonable response.

Lack of proof of resettlement/Jewish survival is a popular anti-revisionist argument. You made an anti-revisionist argument and then you tried to pass that off as a summary of the "best" revisionist arguments. You think you're being clever. You're not. You're completely transparent. Grade: F.

This isn't that hard. We have threads with summaries of arguments.
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=220
https://archive.codohforum.com/20230609 ... =2&t=13600

Btw, in case you missed it,

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.

The main reason I made this offer (without even requiring you to reciprocate and write a revisionist essay) is that both of your styles are reply-driven or "dialectical" and I don't think either of you would be able to put forward a compelling case for your position in essay form since you could not do your usual trick of dragging other posters into ridiculous and unproductive exchanges.

[Archie]

I could probably keep going with this steelman by saying the conspiracy is proven by the existence of self-evidently bogus witness statements and documents, which cannot be explained in any way other than fabrication.

I understand the revisionist position perfectly believe me, I could easily act as a revisionist on this board and no one would know the difference

That's what this thread is for. If you are able to do it, then why did you fail so hard?

People usually reveal themselves pretty quickly. This guy for example (who you claim isn't you but who makes identical arguments). He came on the old forum pretending to be a revisionist and it unraveled immediately.
https://archive.codohforum.com/20230609 ... =2&t=13317

[Archie]

There's no way to explain revisionism without speaking of large scale conspiracy (not wacky).

How are you fumbling this hard Bombsaway? This is pathetic, and is why people don't really respect you (no offense).,

Here I'll give you some help. In one of CJ's stupid Chemistry threads, you retreated to the opinion that the lack of PB was due to a sealant / whitewash combination.

There's your steelman, genius.

"The absence of Prussian Blue asks uncomfortable questions about the chemical reactions that are expected to have happened, and addressing these challenges requires unsubstantiated and untestable opinions"

That wasn't hard, was it? For God's sake

Did you miss this in my response right above

". The science stuff also can be pretty convincing, and the strongest scientific argument is that HCN was detected in the gas chamber walls far less than would be expected. This is a problem for orthodoxy, because they have to rely on possibility to answer it. Eg I would say it is most likely that the walls were specially painted to prevent discoloration similar to what you see at Dachau, but I don't have direct evidence of that."

lack of prussian blue is certainly part of this, and orthodoxy has to rely on possibility to answer why it isn't there

You mentioned a couple of actual revisionist arguments in your follow-up post, but only after your first attempt was roundly mocked.

And even here you've botched/deliberately poisoned the argument. This is not how a revisionist would express it.

"HCN was detected in the gas chamber walls far less than would be expected"

You lead off by emphasizing that "HCN was detected in the gas chamber" which is a highly misleading talking point for YOUR side. You then concede that it was "far less" than expected. I will give you a tiny bit of credit for putting the "far" in there, but it's still a poor presentation of the argument (as it downplays the point and emphasizes supposed positive HCN results). The cyanide compounds in the "gas chambers" are virtually zero, not even a fraction of a percent of what would be expected. And that is only one of many points of attack.

[bombsaway]

I absolutely didn't mean "conspiracy" in derogatory way. I had a girlfriend who used to read my intentions like this as well.

Holocaust is conspiracy. Millions of people aren't going killed like this by happenstance. So we both have conspiracies. This is a statement of fact, which you "dot connected" to read as me giving a reason why revisionism is dumb.

The question 'steelman revisionism' is difficult because there are obviously different kinds of revisionism. So pardon me if I tried to define the one I thought was the strongest - no gas chambers / mass killing in the east, probably genocidal / conspiracy to get the world to believe in the false history.

If you give me a specific argument, I can steel man it no problem. Your stuff with "Far less" is pure pilpul. My steel man was good. Traces of HCN were found in the gas chambers, at FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR lower levels than expected, is that better?

[Nessie]

...

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.

I have steelmanned the so-called revisionist conclusion and you do indeed need to provide evidence to support it. Note my use of the word evidence. That is evidence from witnesses, documents, physical items, forensics and circumstances. It is not argument.

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.

I have also steelmanned reasons why so-called revisionists believe that conclusion, the primary one being they cannot work out how gassings were physically possible, therefore they did not happen.

In reality, an investigation would prove no gas chambers, by finding witnesses who worked inside the Kremas, who state there were no gas chambers and what the building was used for, or documents recording what happened to the hundreds of thousands of people sent to the Kremas and where they subsequently went to.