|
| Thread: Documentaries |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
posted May 13, 2017 04:35 PM |
|
|
I think politics are more than just putting aside logical arguments. Is about why your electorate follows you, how your acts match your country or political side history, what will be the consequences of your words -at long or short term. I remember Francois Mitterrand, when he was asked by some Jewish journalist "would you acknowledge and ask forgiveness to the Jewish community for France having sent them to gas chambers" and he retorted "not in this life" (ils peuvent attendre). While Chirac, Holland then today Macron take an "honor point" to do the opposite and knell in front of each community demands, especially Jewish.
So I would give the same answer for various reasons, as not being so easy to domesticate or manipulate, because such questions are not coincidental questions in order to know someone's opinion on trivial facts. But to send a signal to its voters, an attempt to politically dominate, create a spiral of culpability, and often with a financial goal at the end. Le Pen was the first to feel what was to come and that's why, probably, he was so resistant. The fact that today, you CAN'T deny or even DISCUSS the Holocaust reality without being charged and criminalized validate my thoughts. I mean, what is the difference between this law and the blaspheme in theocracies?
Then, on the end, how is saying "I never saw the gas chambers" anti semitic, against one race? Someone please explain me the logical process one can come with to reach to this conclusion.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 13, 2017 04:51 PM |
|
|
|
The gas chambers are fake news. There were only forced labor camps, and - sure, work was hard, so one or another person may have died in there, but the rest? Zionist propaganda. It's really a shame that nowadays you can't speak the truth anymore. Same in Germany. Law against it. If you deny the holocaust, they come done on you. What happened to freedom of speech. With Hitler you could at least openly say that Jews suck. And the streets were safe. Because they took all criminals to the labor camps - where they belong. That muslim refugee nonsense wouldn't have been possible then. It's all part of the Jewish-communist world conspiracy.
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted May 13, 2017 05:07 PM |
|
|
I personally don't question the existence of gas chambers but that's not really the issue being discussed. When someone starts saying such things, of course a lot will think pejoratively of him, but condemning him? Condemning someone solely for something he said makes me think of some sort of fascism. So what if a someone contests history? He didn't kill anyone, he didn't physically attack anyone either, the worst that should happen is his reputation being affected.
Then about this precise subject, there is something I find deranging in France: creating a hierarchy of sufferings. For instance, a few months before he got elected, Macron said french colonization was a crime against humanity, then a few weeks later, he said yes it is a crime against humanity, but not as much of a crime against humanity than Shoah was. What the hell does this mean? Why should we place one suffering above all others? Should I understand South America also is "not as much of a genocide than Shoah" then? IMO this makes no sense, a genocide is a genocide, end of story.
So this small kinds of details tend to confuse people and create conspiracies, but again, I don't agree with the rude dismissing of any kind of conspiracies, they are everywhere in whole history so I don't see why and how they would stop now.
____________
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted May 13, 2017 05:09 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
With Hitler you could at least openly say that Jews suck.
yeah, going into extreme caricatures, to what end? Le Pen didn't deny neither (did he?), is just that sometimes independent minds refuse to follow the tone given by a biased concertmaster. The sheep attitude is not yet generalized, fortunately.
The question is wether one argues about a fact, should him be criminalized or not about, then is this matching what our democracies pretend to offer, free will, independent thinking and freedom of speech. Even if you are proven wrong, nobody should take from you the right to say it.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 14, 2017 08:54 AM |
|
|
Why would you argue about facts? And why would you argue about PARTIAL facts? I mean, they didn't kill ONLY jews in the CCs, they killed also gypsies, and gays, and communists, and everyone else they didn't like, and they also killed "life unworthy to live", without putting them into camps first.
There IS nothing to argue here, as there is nothing to argue about the fact that there has been a wall in Berlin, built to stop people from fleeing from Sowjet sector of Berlin into a West sector.
There is also nothing to DOUBT here. Why WOULD you? No one owes the surviving jews anything, at least not in my book, because those who did this to them are all dead or will be soon, and no one owes Israel anything.
What we owe US, as humans and therefore as being relatives of both killers and victims, is that we respect the frakking facts and the frakking truth, lest we forget what is actually possible and what can happen.
Denying facts is - in my view - NOT beyond being a punishable crime. Discussing motives or reasons is and should be, but for that someone has to accept the facts first, otherwise there cannot be a discussion.
In other words, freedom of speech gives you a right to voice your opinion, but if your "opinion" is not an opinion ON facts, but a reinvention OF facts, then you don't voice your opinion, but instead are producing lies, falsehoods and deceit.
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted May 14, 2017 09:14 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
but instead are producing lies, falsehoods and deceit.
Sorry but, politicians are doing this all the time and they don't get themselves condemned (at least not all the time). 
____________
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted May 14, 2017 09:38 AM |
|
|
That was not my point. A lie is condemnable (outside the moral aspect) only in court and while testifying, not in real life. My point was about racism in this particular case, which WOULD be in fact condemnable outside court. Artu said that it is racist to question gas chambers, so let me put it in another way:
if I say "I don't know if Americans dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, I wasn't there so I can't say", is that making me racist toward Japanese?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 14, 2017 11:09 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 11:31, 14 May 2017.
|
If you are some philosophy student debating about how credible any knowledge is, outside of your own senses (or mind etc.) or if there is a similar context, no it wouldn't make you racist. But any other context than such mind gymnastics, trying to make concrete historical facts such as the Hiroshima bombing or Nazi gas chambers appear uncertain would very obviously indicate you have a problem with the victimized group. The Hiroshima bombing or the gas chambers have been proven to exist beyond any reasonable doubt by countless evidence and testimony, unless you are some historian with extremely strong new evidence that clearly suggests otherwise, their existence is not open to speculation So, the answer to your question is a very very obvious YES. You are right about one thing, when a journalist asks a question about gas chambers to a politician who is (justifiably or not) infamous for anti-semitism, it is indeed not to learn if it had really happened, he is checking out the accusations and when La Pen gives such a blatantly evasive reply, he confirms the accusations for any objective person. (You certainly don't fit that category when it comes to this subject.) If he did not want to be manipulated like you suggested, he could have simply replied "yes, of course gas chambers are real but what has that got to do with our current issues in France, why bring this up when I'm talking about French politics." Being so reluctant to pronounce such an obvious historical fact must have a reason, and that reason is not something I pick up from zillions of distant possibilities when he was publishing magazines with ex-Nazis and he was considered a far-right extremist by his own people.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted May 14, 2017 01:30 PM |
|
|
|
Nice rhetoric, but for me that doesn't make any sense, outside that intentional manipulation can produce the effect you are looking for. Whatever.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 14, 2017 01:52 PM |
|
|
|
Don't make it sound like I play with words to twist something please. It's simple deduction. If it is manipulation you are complaining about, it is very easy not to be manipulated in such a case, hand out that the facts are facts and move on with your own agenda. As a politician, I'm sure he was aware of this more than you and me.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted May 14, 2017 10:02 PM |
|
|
No, I am saying you manipulate the parameters of the discussion in order to get your conclusion. Look, I gave LP as example but my question was on the common person, not politicized or biased. I am not defending him, he was a very provocative political figure which, imo, did a lot of damage to its own political group. But then you pick his case in order to prove the law is fair, while adding a lot of your own bias in the way.
When you say:
Quote:
If you are some philosophy student debating about how credible any knowledge is, outside of your own senses (or mind etc.) or if there is a similar context, no it wouldn't make you racist.
It would, because the law doesn't pick only Le Pen, but every individual questioning or denying the holocaust or ANY details about it. Gayssot act
Quote:
But any other context than such mind gymnastics, trying to make concrete historical facts such as the Hiroshima bombing or Nazi gas chambers appear uncertain would very obviously indicate you have a problem with the victimized group.
On which base you take that conclusion? There are zillions of reasons I could just engage in a "no I don't believe" about any historical fact, especially when the other side is trying to hammer me daily with how should I interpret the facts and not other way. For example, I never studied the Holocaust reality, I know about it only superficially, from movies and from TV (even if I use to switch channel when they start whining about). So why would I acknowledge it happened? I would say, exactly as Le Pen (in this case): "I don't know, I didn't study this aspect of the 2nd ww".
Quote:
You are right about one thing, when a journalist asks a question about gas chambers to a politician who is (justifiably or not) infamous for anti-semitism,
Well, thats just false. His first accusation about being anti-semite came from exactly this debate.
Anyway, the bottom point is that the act Gayssot is very disputed today, with tons of intellectuals asking for its removal. Here, an article written by Noah Chomsky about it.
I understand that Vincent Reynouard has been condemned and jailed under the Gayssot law, and that a petition is being circulated in protest against these actions. I know nothing about Mr. Reynouard, but regard the Gayssot law as entirely illegitimate, inconsistent with the basic principles of a free society as these have been understood since the Enlightenment. The law in effect grants the state the right to determine historical truth and to punish departure from its edicts, a principle reminiscent of the dark days of Stalinism and Nazism. If the justification of the Gayssot law is to ban « horrendous views« , or to protect the right to « live free from fear of an atmosphere » of prejudice and racism, then it should be obvious that, if such laws were applied impartially, they would criminalize a vast range of public discourse, which, however despicable one may find it, should certainly be permitted in a free society, and indeed is, with no question being raised.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 14, 2017 10:37 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 22:44, 14 May 2017.
|
First of all, I stated two times that his reply shouldn't be illegal. It's not even directly offensive or anything, what I objected about what you said was, that it was indeed a valid interpretation when they tie his evasive reply to his racism. So he can be shunned. This is totally wrong:
Quote:
On which base you take that conclusion? There are zillions of reasons I could just engage in a "no I don't believe" about any historical fact, especially when the other side is trying to hammer me daily with how should I interpret the facts and not other way. For example, I never studied the Holocaust reality, I know about it only superficially, from movies and from TV (even if I use to switch channel when they start whining about). So why would I acknowledge it happened? I would say, exactly as Le Pen (in this case): "I don't know, I didn't study this aspect of the 2nd ww"
Historical facts don't change no matter who hammers you with what. An African-American activist from Blacklivesmatter may be bringing up slavery here and there too much whether it is relevant or not, but that does not turn questioning the historical existence of slavery into something okay or justifiable. There are things that require expert knowledge and then there are things that don't. You can say that one should be an expert to truly evaluate the consequences of Napoleon's defeat in Waterloo on 19th century politics but you really don't need to be an expert to say "Waterloo exists and Napoleon got defeated." And as I already told you, this is not some distant possibility among zillions of other ones. La Pen's anti-semitic tendencies were questioned for many reasons and someone doesn't get asked "if the Holocaust happened or not according to him" if he is not already suspected. Does anybody get asked if Hiroshima was real? If there were a group of anti-Japan people claiming it wasn't though, a reporter would ask you to see if you're in line with them. The question doesn't make sense any other way, it's like asking if the Earth orbits the Sun. But of course, we're not astronomers either, so maybe if somebody asks me such a question, it would be for many many reasons, not to try to see if I am a flat-earth believer or not!
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
frostysh
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
WHY?
|
|
posted June 18, 2017 10:42 AM |
|
|
artu said:
Historical facts don't change no matter who hammers you with what. An African-American activist from Blacklivesmatter may be bringing up slavery here and there too much whether it is relevant or not, but that does not turn questioning the historical existence of slavery into something okay or justifiable. There are things that require expert knowledge and then there are things that don't. . .
+1, trying to manipulate with such things as holocaust in the manner that mr Le Pen did, it is something like a discussions on the topic "Are we really exist?"  . Mr Le Pen must always! answer in the manner that he answered, despite of which 'interest' he representing  .
In short, such questions a very predictable, the answer to this question even more predictable, the reaction in society after is useful to somebody 
P.S. Mr artu, may I ask what the hell frostysh' account name is doing in your signature? No I am not against, just askin' why? As you may know, frostysh have no great success in communication with peoples, especially with some particular categories of peoples, which is widely represented on this forum, so maybe they can consider it as the attempt to support of spreading of frostysh "heretic thoughts" . But anyway, thanx for copyrights whahha. I am joking.
Eric Hoffer(1976AD)-Communism, Albert Einstein(1929AD)-Nationalism, Steven Weinberg(1999AD)-Religion
____________
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted December 02, 2017 10:26 AM |
|
|
Nothing to hide (4 languages available, select your favorite).
____________
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted January 05, 2018 10:47 PM |
|
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 06, 2018 01:10 AM |
|
|
I already linked the whole documantery in this thread. Btw, I wonder how would Barenboim react to Say's Appassionata which I think is deliberately manic.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted January 06, 2018 01:52 AM |
|
|
|
I never saw Barenboim going savage, so maybe he will just quit the room.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 18, 2018 06:22 PM |
|
|
Not exactly a documantery but I just wanted have this here, an incredible site for Linguistic Maps. Check out your or any other country's linguistic spread, or go continental etc... Great way to see who passed from where also.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 05, 2018 04:23 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 16:24, 05 Apr 2018.
|
Currently watching Wild Wild Country at Netflix, I'm at episode 3 and cant wait to keep on. An incredible true story, very insightfully approached with testimonies from both sides of the conflict. Makes you contemplate about so many things including group psychology, tradition, religion, territory, identity, capitalism and the links between all of these.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 12, 2018 04:53 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 06:07, 12 Aug 2018.
|
| |
|
|
