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

[Nessie]

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.

The challenge was to steelman the strongest revisionist argument in the most favourable way.

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.

You missed out that I have explained why there is no strongest argument, and in fact they are all obviously weak, deeply flawed and often illogical.

[Nessie]

As a follow up to my last but one post, "there were no mass gassings" steelmanning the so-called revisionist conclusion. HansHill suggests a steelman argument about the lack of Prussian Blue as being the strongest argument to support that conclusion.

The problem with that is history and events are not proved by argument, they are proved by evidence. There is evidence to prove the Leichekellers were used for gassings, from multiple, independent, corroborating sources of evidence. So, the argument it was not possible for there to have been gassings, is not supported by, indeed, it is contradicted by the evidence.
Despite decades of research, where some such as Mattogno, Rudolf and Pressac have accessed camp archives and searched for evidence, no actual historical revision has taken place. At best, suggestions have been made as to what instead happened inside the Leichenkellers, such as they were showers, or bomb shelters. Those various suggestions are all so evidentially weak, that so-called revisionism cannot reach a consensus and agree.

As for the argument itself, that because there is a lack of PB, gassings cannot have taken place, there are flaws with that as well. Those flaws have been discussed and explained by me on numerous occasions, so no need to do so again here.

So, evidentially and inherently, the supposed steelman argument about PB, is weak and my position remains as before, there is no "strongest revisionist argument".

[HansHill]

HansHill suggests a steelman argument about the lack of Prussian Blue as being the strongest argument to support that conclusion.

To be clear, this was Bombsaway's steelman that he had written before my post, not mine. I was simply stepping in to declutter it from the self-sabotage he baked in to it (and thereby, NOT a steelman).

[Nessie]

HansHill suggests a steelman argument about the lack of Prussian Blue as being the strongest argument to support that conclusion.

To be clear, this was Bombsaway's steelman that he had written before my post, not mine. I was simply stepping in to declutter it from the self-sabotage he baked in to it (and thereby, NOT a steelman).

I take it you still think the lack of PB is at least one of the stronger revisionist arguments?

[HansHill]

HansHill suggests a steelman argument about the lack of Prussian Blue as being the strongest argument to support that conclusion.

To be clear, this was Bombsaway's steelman that he had written before my post, not mine. I was simply stepping in to declutter it from the self-sabotage he baked in to it (and thereby, NOT a steelman).

I take it you still think the lack of PB is at least one of the stronger revisionist arguments?

Correct - it critically assesses and directly undermines the feasibility of the alleged murder weapon.

[Nessie]

To be clear, this was Bombsaway's steelman that he had written before my post, not mine. I was simply stepping in to declutter it from the self-sabotage he baked in to it (and thereby, NOT a steelman).

I take it you still think the lack of PB is at least one of the stronger revisionist arguments?

Correct - it critically assesses and directly undermines the feasibility of the alleged murder weapon.

OK.

A scenario.

- Theory A states something happened. Theory B states that something cannot have happened.
- It is impossible to test either theory, using experiments that replicate that something, to establish if it can, or cannot have happened.
- There is corroborating evidence that it did happen, which supports theory A.

How do you rationally and logically argue theory B is correct?

[HansHill]

Firstly this is off-topic and has been litigated in many other threads, notably the chemistry threads. Secondly, you've positioned that the theories cannot be tested but that's misleading. Just because we cannot gas a room full of people one hundred times and log the results afterwards, doesn't mean the chemical processes are unknowable, mysterious or exotic to us. They are the opposite, they are eminently knowable, mundane, predictable and wholly replicable. But to give a very brief answer here:

If Theory A describes a process that has critical weaknesses, in this instance, it describes a chemical process that is otherwise inexplicable (absence of chemical reaction despite all ingredients being present), then we either need a satisfactory explanation to address this absence, or otherwise discard the claims as impossible.

Occam's razor alone tells us that, in this instance, the claims of eyewitnesses should not dispel the expected laws of chemistry without a satisfactory explanation. This is all I'm going to say on the chemistry, as again this is off topic and if you continue to re-litigate it here I'll be reporting your posts.

[pilgrimofdark]

You missed out that I have explained why there is no strongest argument, and in fact they are all obviously weak, deeply flawed and often illogical.

I couldn't fit in every example of passive-aggressive bullying or it would just be plagiarism. But we're not talking about Das Prussian here.

However, with your suggested revision, I've edited this.

Steelman of Nessie's Steelman of Revisionism

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 you are frankly idiotic. 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. If you had any strong arguments, I wouldn't be forced to point out your repeated mistakes. Because you have nothing but weak arguments, you can only bully me, denier.

This leads nicely into another fun thought experiment:

Steelman of the Holocaust in the Style of Nessie's Steelman of Revisionism

I'll work on it when I have time.

[Nessie]

Firstly this is off-topic and has been litigated in many other threads, notably the chemistry threads. Secondly, you've positioned that the theories cannot be tested but that's misleading. Just because we cannot gas a room full of people one hundred times and log the results afterwards, doesn't mean the chemical processes are unknowable, mysterious or exotic to us. They are the opposite, they are eminently knowable, mundane, predictable and wholly replicable. But to give a very brief answer here:

If Theory A describes a process that has critical weaknesses, in this instance, it describes a chemical process that is otherwise inexplicable (absence of chemical reaction despite all ingredients being present), then we either need a satisfactory explanation to address this absence, or otherwise discard the claims as impossible.

Occam's razor alone tells us that, in this instance, the claims of eyewitnesses should not dispel the expected laws of chemistry without a satisfactory explanation. This is all I'm going to say on the chemistry, as again this is off topic and if you continue to re-litigate it here I'll be reporting your posts.

I am trying my best to steelman what you regard as a strong argument. I can provide another, in a similar form.

- Theory A states when someone used a word L, they meant A. Theory B states when that word L was used, the person meant B.

There are people who are confident in theory A and others who are confident in theory B. There are also some who are on the fence, uncertain as to which one is correct.

- It is impossible to test either theory, by asking the person exactly what they meant when they used the word L.

It is possible to test either theory by looking at other times they used that word, and what they possibly meant, but the results are not going to be that convincing.

- There is corroborating evidence that A was happening at the time when the person used the word L, which supports theory A.

For those who are sure theory A is correct and those who are uncertain about the theories, this makes it more sensible and rational to continue to support, or now support, theory A. That is why I struggle to steelman a claim that theory B is correct.

Have you taken into account that you have a bias that makes you support theory B, when common sense, logic and evidencing say theory A is correct?

[HansHill]

The problem with this example is that it is not from the hard sciences and therefore it's replication value is comparatively low. What a person thinks and believes (and therefore means to convey) is the realm of psychology which everyone agrees will not have the same degree of predictability as the hard sciences, due to its myriad variables. What a person means can be affected by context, mood, age, time of day, stress, culture, are they joking, excited, lying, flirting, negotiating, feeling threatened, received bad news, won the lottery that day, on their deathbed, and a myriad other variables which I am not compelled to list. Other than to say, this analogy lacks what we mean when we talk about replication, predictability, and the processes being uniform and consistent across time. Which is exactly what chemistry does have.

[Nessie]

The problem with this example is that it is not from the hard sciences and therefore it's replication value is comparatively low. What a person thinks and believes (and therefore means to convey) is the realm of psychology which everyone agrees will not have the same degree of predictability as the hard sciences, due to its myriad variables. What a person means can be affected by context, mood, age, time of day, stress, culture, are they joking, excited, lying, flirting, negotiating, feeling threatened, received bad news, won the lottery that day, on their deathbed, and a myriad other variables which I am not compelled to list. Other than to say, this analogy lacks what we mean when we talk about replication, predictability, and the processes being uniform and consistent across time. Which is exactly what chemistry does have.

My second example, is obviously relating to Ausrotten, meaning either to root out or exterminate. You would argue it only ever meant root out as there was no extermination. But there is evidence of both the rooting out (by which I mean arresting, removal or transportation of Jews) and the extermination of Jews. You only accept the evidence of rooting out. I accept the evidence of both, so say it meant both, it referred to the entire process.

It is impossible to steelman the argument it only meant root out, due to that most contentious issue to you, of, well, where did they go? Once they were rooted out of their homes and sent to camps and ghettos, if there was evidence of millions in the camps and ghettos in 1944, you would be proven correct. But, again, the evidence is against you, as by 1944 the last of the ghettos had closed, as had many camps. A-B had a smaller population in 1944 than it had in 1943. For them to be alive in 1944, they had to be somehow, somewhere else, no one has ever found.

The argument over Ausrotten again falls apart. I cannot steelman it favourably for revisionists.

[HansHill]

What

The benign interpretation of Ausrottung is not a proactive Revisionist argument. If anything, it's a reactive counterargument to the Orthodox position that it must by necessity mean to murder in its context.

The fact you think think this belongs in a steelman of any revisionist position is baffling if not outright dishonest.

[Nessie]

What

The benign interpretation of Ausrottung is not a proactive Revisionist argument. If anything, it's a reactive counterargument to the Orthodox position that it must by necessity mean to murder in its context.

The fact you think think this belongs in a steelman of any revisionist position is baffling if not outright dishonest.

Arguing that the Nazis used coded language, such as Ausrottung for resettlement, is a so-called revisionist position. I have just explained why it fails as an argument.

[curioussoul]

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?

The challenge was to steelman whichever revisionist argument that, in your opinion, is the strongest/most compelling. You don't need to steelman all of revisionism. Surely, you've encountered at least one argument that you had to carefully investigate and think about in order to formulate a response to? Let's be real, most subjects are broad and complex, so steelmanning an entire subject matter is going to be difficult. I just want you to select whichever revisionist argument you believe to be the strongest and most compelling, and then steelman it. We understand there are thousands of arguments of differing quality, just go with the strongest one.

I agree with HansHill and Archie. What we've seen so far are basically just half-hearted attempts at describing a revisionist argument but poisoning it in the cradle. If you believe the chemical arguments are the strongest, then go for it.

[curioussoul]

Nessie, either attempt a straightforward steelman of the strongest revisionist argument, or leave the thread. Even if you think all revisionist arguments are bad, they can still be graded on a scale from 'most bad' to 'least bad'. Select the 'least bad' option and steelman it in an honest and straightforward way.

Or leave the thread. It's very simple.