I am also invested into oranges being orange color

Words hit harder than zyklon B

I don't disagree materially with this, however it misses the spirit of the argument, that regardless of what you name it, current Leftist trajectory is every bit as careening toward humanitarian disaster as it ever was. Moderates and conservatives have a healthy skepticism of so called "democratic socialism" as a gateway drug to what eventually becomes ovens designed for people who wear glasses.

Is this how they got you? preyed on your fear?

the end result is the same no matter what system of govt prevails. 100-200 years from now Labor dies, entirely. it's just done, gone. no one will have a "job" as we currently understand it.

at which time either corporations or the people own the fruits of that labor. democratic socialism, for all of it's many failures, seeks to place the spoils in the hands of the population. ironically due to a desire to empower workers, who themselves are doomed. but they're the only real system that can prevent our great grand children from living in a 1 bedroom apartment on govt subsidy stipends. not that they even understand why.

automation and corporate profit are the two most important policies of our time, and they're hardly a footnote in most political debates. we'd rather waste valuable time talking about abortion (which the govt will likely pay you to get 100 years from now) and trans bathrooms (which no one will care about regardless of what we do now). we're just a pack of greyhounds chasing the bogus rabbit while others make bets on us.

regardless of the reason for their doubt though? i'd argue that there is a big difference between "doubting" something due to a lack of evidence and "doubting" something with the intention of downplaying / denying an event for political reasons.

let's say someone hated white people and claimed "white people never invented anything". a ridiculous claim ofc - but you, in your chosen role of open-minded listener without any historical knowledge of their own, except for what you have witnessed with your own eyes, "should listen" to them and entertain their brain farts? that seems like a ridiculous "standard" - and quite frankly, i don't believe you actually apply that to anything else, except of course the holocaust. and it's not particularly difficult to guess why...

Dude, you literally have no way of knowing what motivates people to doubt certain things. Stop being unreasonable.

Besides, it shouldn't matter, either. Whether or not holocaust is real is independent of whether the denier hates Jews.

This post was edited by JessiWan on Dec 5 2022 02:07pm

don't be silly, the argument obviously goes the other way around: the more the person hates jews, the more likely they are to deny the holocaust. i've yet to encounter a holocaust denier who isn't an anti-semite.

it's pretty rich of you to tell me to stop being unreasonable, while insisting to listen to unreasonable people, denying undeniable historical facts.

that's not "reasonable", "fair", "open-minded" or any other spin you like to put on it. it's bad revisionist history in order to downplay an unspeakable atrocity. no one is buying the "concerned sceptic" the "unbiased observer" act. holocaust deniers and their defenders are hate-mongers, plain and simple.

Ok, prove that these facts are undeniable.



It's an unspeakable atrocity only if it happened. But it didn't.

This post was edited by JessiWan on Dec 5 2022 02:16pm

there's my proof. when someone claims, against an overwhelming body of evidence (including countless eye witnesses, victims, their families, perpetrators, contemporaries, document, photos...), that something didn't happen, they are unreasonable, to say the least.