"Revisionists cannot work out how the Holocaust happened"...

[HansHill]

...we have to remember that there are people out there who think that 6 million Jews were systematically gassed in Auschwitz, so what is discussed on this forum is way beyond the knowledge of the masses. If you were to ask the majority of people who know about the Holocaust what happened at Treblinka, they might not even recognize the name of the camp. The reason they might believe the orthodox claims about Treblinka is because they have been emotionally conditioned to reject "Holocaust denial". Any objective use of logic, reasoning, and research into these claims will show that they are simply ridiculous....

There are three categories of people as I see it

1) Revisionists - This category understand the Holocaust to the highest degree, of all three categories and apply critical thinking to the various aspects and advance probing questions.

2) Mild & casual affirmers - This category understand the Holocaust to the smallest degree objectively speaking, mostly due to never being prompted or otherwise interested in finding out more; this leads to, as you rightly say, wild misunderstandings like 6 million gassed at Auschwitz from fake (or real?) showers.

3) Rabid affirmers - This category is the redheaded stepchild, who recognise and regurgitate names, dates, maps, and other surface level prompts much like an AI output generator, however they completely misunderstand the Holocaust by you know, affirming it.

Our friend Nessie here is category 3, obviously. If you think the "AI" line was a cheap low blow, check out some threads from recent months involving a poster named "Confused Jew". No really, that was his actual name. And he chose it himself, I assume. His whole persona revolved around feigning interest in X-topic, receiving Y-answer, and rebutting with Z-ChatGPT copy pasta. He was honest about his use of AI, so i don't think anybody could call that a misrepresentation. Although I can't prove it, I also suspect our friend Nessie here asks for AI assistance via prompts about debate strategies and how to rebut arguments, leading him to hilariously misdiagnose winning arguments as """"fallacies"""" that don't make sense.

But yes, even in the small number of exchanges in just this thread alone, Nessie has been embarrassed, any onlooker will view Cowboy's rebuttal as superior, Nessie will return with some slop, and Cowboy, Sirius, Stubble and Archie will embarrass him again. Wash, rinse, repeat.

[Cowboy]

Our friend Nessie here is category 3, obviously. If you think the "AI" line was a cheap low blow, check out some threads from recent months involving a poster named "Confused Jew". No really, that was his actual name. And he chose it himself, I assume. His whole persona revolved around feigning interest in X-topic, receiving Y-answer, and rebutting with Z-ChatGPT copy pasta.

I remember when he posted his first thread on here a while ago. I could tell pretty immediately that his first few rebuttals were AI because of the content and the way it was formatted. It was sort of funny seeing such basic arguments be posted in a serious manner on here when they've been dealt with countless times before, but I can't really blame him if he was truly confused. I haven't seen him post anything significant in a while though, so hopefully he has actually taken up the advice given to him and is actually doing real research on revisionism. No guarantees.

3) Rabid affirmers - This category is the redheaded stepchild, who recognise and regurgitate names, dates, maps, and other surface level prompts much like an AI output generator, however they completely misunderstand the Holocaust by you know, affirming it.

I do think that the overloading of date, maps, and other niche information can look really intimidating to people who are doing deep dives into the subject for the first time. But, again, the claims that form the Holocaust narrative just don't hold up under intense scrutiny, and mental gymnastics are needed to demonstrate how they could "technically" be possible and have happened. I find that revisionists generally provide a more logical proceeding about what actually occurred given the context of the situation. The pushback is then "well they don't all agree on everything, so there is no consensus among them, which means I'm right." My primary rebuttal to this point is that revisionists agree on the big details, such as there were no homicidal gas chambers, no "final solution" order, and that there was a program of deportation taking place (which I think affirmers believe to an extent). These seem to be the core principles of revisionism. After these core principles have been established, then they are able to take a closer look and quibble with the smaller details. Disagreements and alternative explanations about little details are bound to happen, but that's just the process of research. The most important thing is that they are working towards the truth.