You can see in this post one of the typical accusations that revisionists make: Nessie did not simply err in saying that all the people working at the Crema testified, this was a deliberate falsification. This is a rather obvious case; (the mainstream belief is that most of the "stokers" were killed) but the poster makes the accusation as if there is no other alternative explanation for it.Post by curioussoul » Mon Oct 28, 2024 7:31 pm
"Every single person"?! Thousands of people worked in the Kremas. Lists of personnel show that sometimes hundreds of prisoners worked as stokers at any one time. The Soviets hand-picked a few dudes willing to tell elaborate lies that bolstered their own narrative (such as Tauber). That's like less than one tenth of one percent of all the people who worked in the Kremas. To claim "every single person" witnessed gassings is yet another lie.Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 11:30 am
Key events. Every single person, Jewish (of various nationalities) Nazi, German and Polish civilian, who worked at the Kremas, reports their use for mass gassings.
I've been accused of lying a lot as well, and this of course makes productive conversation a lot harder. I'm definitely "anti-revisionist" in that I think it's an intellectually unjustifiable position, but I would defend the rights of revisionist to practice, publish, speak freely on social media. I also think it's an intellectually interesting exercise in and of itself and probably better than playing video games. Yet probably most of the revisionists here think this is a lie, I'm concern trolling, intentionally sowing confusion in a movement I am committed to destroy for ideological reasons. If I say I don't fear revisionism, that I don't think this movement is ever going to grow in popularity or official acceptance beyond even something like Q Anon which I view as marginal, therefore there's no reason for me to fight to destroy it, this will be regarded as a further attempt to sow confusion.
But to me this also reveals a pattern of thinking with you guys. The witnesses too, are seen as liars, even if there are other explanations for their "errors". Even witnesses who don't make any errors are declared liars because of mere proximity to other liars. I think if you're making such an accusation you have to actually evidence an intent to lie. This is hard to do but necessary, one can probably look at libel law for examples of how to evidence someone is lying.
AI view of this post
I asked the AI, if all one has is "Consistently leaving out key contextual information that would change the interpretation" "Demonstrable pattern of only presenting facts that support one conclusion" is this enough to show lying?Let me help analyze methods for demonstrating deceptive intent, as this relates to evaluating historical claims and testimony.
From an analytical perspective, here are some established methods for demonstrating that someone is deliberately lying rather than making an honest mistake:
1. Pattern of Selective Omission
- Consistently leaving out key contextual information that would change the interpretation
- Documentation showing awareness of the omitted information
- Demonstrable pattern of only presenting facts that support one conclusion
2. Direct Documentary Contradiction
- Finding contemporary documents/records created by the person that contradict their later statements
- Evidence they had access to accurate information at the time
- No plausible explanation for the discrepancy besides deliberate deception
3. Internal Inconsistency Analysis
- Multiple contradictory statements from the same source
- Changes in key details that are unlikely to be memory errors
- Modifications to testimony that conveniently align with new evidence
4. Contextual Factors
- Clear motivation/incentive for deception
- Evidence of coordination with others to align stories
- Documentation of pressure or rewards for specific testimony
5. Legal Standards (as you mentioned)
- Actual malice standard - knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth
- Evidence of deliberate fabrication
- Documentation of intent to deceive
The key is differentiating between:
- Honest mistakes/misremembering
- Different interpretations of ambiguous evidence
- Deliberate deception
So the standard is probably higher than merely seeing some patterns, which allows for a lot of subjectivity in evaluation. Ironically revisionists could be accused of "lying" under these criteria, eg the way they ignored (in print or e-book at least) Eichmann's Argentina materials, the HC blog typewriter analysis of FG report. From the orthodox side, revisionists have been accused of lying which I would also say is not justifiable or warranted but these accusations are much less pronounced from what I have seen.No, those factors alone are not sufficient to definitively prove lying. Here's why:
1. Selection bias and confirmation bias are common human cognitive patterns that can occur without deliberate deception. People often unconsciously:
- Focus on evidence that supports their existing beliefs
- Pay less attention to contradictory information
- Interpret ambiguous information in ways that fit their understanding
2. Limited knowledge or access to information could explain selective presentation. Someone might:
- Be genuinely unaware of contrary evidence
- Have incomplete access to relevant sources
- Work from a limited set of references
3. To demonstrate lying rather than bias or error, you typically need additional evidence like:
- Direct proof they knew the omitted information was true and relevant
- Documentation showing they actively suppressed contrary evidence
- Clear evidence of intent to deceive rather than just motivated reasoning
For example: If someone makes Statement A, and you find their private communications acknowledging A is false while continuing to publicly promote it - that would be stronger evidence of lying compared to just selective presentation of facts.
In any case, this is a thread in which revisionists can point to any clear instances of Holocaust defenders lying about history, intentionally misrepresenting things, as opposed to merely being delusional, biased, sloppy (these criticisms I would certainly level towards revisionists but they are more fair towards our side as well).
