Tarnstellung
No bio...
User ID: 553
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
Can those sorts of comments not be jannied?
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
Huh, it was surprisingly close.
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
Who are "Neoliberal Adherents"?
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
witness accounts are not sufficient evidence to establish what is being claimed.
I agree on this point, broadly speaking.
That is good for you to acknowledge, but you are not interpreting the eyewitness accounts critically. For example, you take it for granted for granted that the entire 2 hectares of area conceivably had burial pits of 10 meters deep. No pits of 10 meters have been identified nor excavated, but apparently you do not require any physical investigation of these 10 meter pits in order to be sure they existed. The area burial density is unlike any other grave in human history, not even close. It is not plausible absent concrete, physical evidence which does not exist. Of those 2 hectares, 0% has been shown to actually cover mass graves of any depth, much less mass graves 10 meters deep for the entire area.
A million people buried in 2 hectares would be by far the most dense grave of carcasses in human history. It's not a plausible claim unless there is significant physical evidence to support it, and there is not. You rely on witness testimony to assert the plausibility of the claims.
Edit: A Revisionist has also compared burial density of other (real) concentration camp mass graves to the alleged Treblinka mass graves. Again, the real concentration camp graves resemble other known mass graves and the Treblinka mass graves you are alleging resemble nothing in history.
Furthermore, the historical position is not that these claims are plausible, it's that they are certain and there is no doubt the claims are true. Your assertion that "if 100% of 2 hectares was one giant pit that was 10 meters deep then it would be plausible" is a weak position in the face of official historiography, which has a much stronger position than "plausible."
Do you also think it's "plausible" that 5,000-7,000 people were cremated on outdoor pyres every single day? Do you think the truth of that claim is as certain as it is claimed by mainstream historiography? Do you also think it's plausible that these cremations were done without fuel?
You clearly know much more about Treblinka than I do, so I'm not sure if I can provide any good counterarguments. Let's suppose, then, for the sake of the argument, that the archaeological evidence for the "official narrative" is insufficient. That means we don't know what exactly was done with the Jews.
Other evidence exists for the claim that over 700,000 people were killed at Treblinka, such as the Höfle Telegram and the Korherr Report. But looking at them, thanks to the euphemisms used, I suppose they might also be interpreted as supporting the transit camp theory.
However, you did not address the question in my previous post: if Treblinka was merely a transit camp, where did the Jews transit from there? Where were the hundreds of thousands of eyewitnesses after the war who testified that they passed through Treblinka and were peacefully resettled?
And more broadly, demographic data has millions of Jews unaccounted for after the war. Where did they all go? Or do you accept the rest of the "official narrative" and are only sceptical with regard to Treblinka? Auschwitz had proper crematoria, with fuel and everything – do you believe that over a million people were killed there?
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
Of course just because something
Good point. However, I would argue that it doesn't necessarily require a
Absent other evidence, and without further investigation, I would not immediately dismiss allegations of the Nazis building special facilities for British Jews in early 1943. Thankfully, you have now provided evidence that it didn't happen.
But why should this one claim, which is apparently likely false, entirely discredit the account? Eyewitness testimony is known to be quite unreliable, and I can imagine that all sorts of rumours were circulating at the time, see e.g. the soap-from-fat myth. All it shows is that eyewitness accounts should be interpreted critically and shouldn't be taken at face value, which is something we already knew.
The methane gases would escape in the open pit
The gas can slowly seep from the ground and catch fire when exposed to an ignition source, and then burn for a while. This is exactly what happens in landfill fires.
and blood is not flammable.
Of course not. My hypothesis is that some kind of liquid resulting from the decomposition process was misidentified as blood, and that this liquid and/or the associated vapours are what caught fire.
Bodies cannot sustain a fire for a day, and the decomposition would reduce the body mass that would provide energy. Even during a short cremation, the body mass cannot sustain a cremation and external heat has to be added to maintain temperatures. 250,000 bodies bursting into flames, with flammable blood seeping to the surface and burning for an entire day is a propaganda hoax.
I'm not saying the bodies themselves burned. I'm speculating that they released a flammable gas which could have burned for a day. The remains of the bodies would then have to be cremated separately.
Reichmann says that over a million corpses were buried in Treblinka before being unburied and burned, and that particular mass grave with 250,000 bodies was only on grave of eleven mass graves. Do you think it's possible to bury a million people in 5 football fields?
I'm not sure where you got "5 football fields" from, but I will go with it. According to a unit conversion website, 5 football fields is approximately 26,700 m2. The website you linked mentions a depth of four storeys or "between 8 and 12 meters". This website, which I found on the Wikipedia article for the Treblinka camp, says the burial ditches were "10m deep". So, 10 metres seems like a reasonable assumption. This gives us a volume of 267,000 m3. To bury a million corpses therein, one would need to bury around four corpses per cubic metre, which is very much plausible.
It's astounding how much nonsense you are willing to believe without any concrete physical evidence or without the claims even being remotely possible. But believing this story requires belief in the impossible, because the official narrative makes impossible claims only supported by witnesses who lack credibility and have an obvious motive to lie.
The best piece of physical evidence I have is the missing six million Jews. Where did they all go? If Treblinka was merely a transit camp, where did the Jews transit afterwards? Compare the pre-war and post-war census data in Europe, especially Eastern Europe. Even accounting for emigration, millions of Jews disappeared.
In general, I think census data is a reliable source for estimating the number of victims. I'm not familiar with the details of the Holocaust in Europe as a whole, so the best example I can provide is the Jasenovac concentration camp. Shortly after WWII, it was estimated that around 600,000 people were killed there. These estimates were widely accepted, including by the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust and the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Later claims went as high as a million or more. In the 1980s, two researchers independently arrived at much lower estimates based on demographic data. Eventually, after the end of communist censorship, a new consensus formed that the number of victims is around 100,000, an order of magnitude lower than previous estimates.
This shows that it is entirely to possible for new research to greatly lower the estimated number of victims. There is no conspiracy to suppress the truth. Indeed, despite the number six million being embedded in popular culture, some credible historians place it at closer to five million. Yad Vashem says "the number of victims was between five and six million".
But believing this story requires belief in the impossible, because the official narrative makes impossible claims only supported by witnesses who lack credibility and have an obvious motive to lie.
What is the motive to lie?
The mere notion that the Germans three months after Stalingrad would entertain hopes of defeating Great Britain and have all Jews of the island nation shipped over to Europe to be gassed is nothing else than laughable.
The Nazi leadership were delusional. They believed they could turn the tide until the very end of the war. Hitler's megalomaniacal redevelopment of Berlin was only put on hold in March 1943, after his defeat in Stalingrad. Even in late 1944, they were expending military resources to destroy artefacts and buildings of no military value in Warsaw. The notion is hardly "laughable".
There was a strong wind, and the fire burned so intensely, that it spread to the large opened grave. The blood from a quarter of a million human beings went up in flame and burned until the evening of the following day.
All of the leading camp staff came to take a look at this wonder. They marveled at this fantastic fire. The blood rose to the surface of the ground and ignited like fuel.
That sounds like methane or other decomposition products from the bodies, cf. landfill fires. It is not nearly as preposterous as you are claiming that a giant pile of corpses that had been decaying for a long time could burst into flames and burn for a day. Presumably those present were not familiar with the nature of anaerobic decomposition, which is why they misidentified the substance as blood, which, of course, it was not.
Therefore, a plausible explanation exists for both of those claims. Of course, it's just speculation, but you were implying that both claims are patently ridiculous and could not possibly be true.
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
Took you (plural) long enough.
The inappropriateness of the comment should have been obvious to the OP by now thanks to all the downvotes and the multiple comments explicitly saying it's inappropriate. (I wonder, could that be the most downvoted comment ever on The Motte?)
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
What is "the system" or "the establishment" to which you are referring? And who are its real opponents and what do they want?
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
“Someone asked the prime minister if he wanted Hungary to stay in the EU. “Definitely not!” he said, adding that Hungary has no choice, because 85 percent of its exports are within the EU.”
What is that supposed to mean? He doesn't want to be in the EU but he "has no choice" because being in the EU is good for Hungary? He always has the option to pull a UK and tank the country's economy in exchange for "sovereignty" if that's what he wants. It seems that he realizes that leaving the EU would be a monumentally stupid decision, and is just using "the EU" as some kind of vague bogeyman.
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
I think you misunderstood. America is the assailant in this analogy, and America's enemies are the ones being beaten.
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
What is your source on the US borrowing $100 billion to fund Ukraine? The total aid according to this article is worth only $50 billion, and most of that is in-kind (old weapons stockpiles etc.) and not financial.
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
Cum Town.
Note: not for everyone, very highbrow.
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
How would they game a fraud detection algorithm? By not committing fraud?
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
But if our ancestors could kill Byng, a man who really did nothing wrong other than failing to provide a superhuman performance whilst set up to fail by his superiors...
If you want to talk about the incentives this creates, consider how many people will try to avoid jobs where they have any real responsibility, lest they be executed because someone somewhere suspects that they didn't do everything perfectly. A plane crashes and it cannot be determined conclusively whose fault it was? There go the thousands of engineers who worked on it, every technician who inspected or serviced it, and the entire management of the airline.
We can kill officials who completely drop the ball and totally fail to provide rational advice, wasting enormous amounts of time with nonsense like spraying surfaces as opposed to useful recommendations.
I think it's reasonable to assume that they were doing their best and their mistakes can be attributed to the need for a fast response in a complicated and novel situation. In other words, no one could have (realistically) done better.
We can kill the reckless and highly suspicious Ecohealth people, who look like they have megadeaths on their hands from negligent gain-of-function coronavirus/furin-cleavage-site insertion. Even if they weren't responsible, it would certainly encourage other researchers not to tempt fate and court death, a valuable boon.
Outside of internet conspiracy theories, is there any indication they actually did anything wrong?
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
These restrictions on iMessage on non-Apple systems, including the "green bubble" nonsense, are clearly anti-competitive. A competent and non-captured competition regulator would have cracked down on Apple ages ago.
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
If women prisoners need to be protected from rape due to the possibility of pregnancy, allowing an inmate with a functional penis into a women's prison very directly defeats the point. That situation is NOT hypothetical.
The linked article says:
It was initially reported by DOC officials that Minor [trans woman] had impregnated two inmates after engaging in “consensual sexual relationships” (...)
“One was absolutely consensual,” said Demeri [Minor's lawyer]. “But in the other case, Demi [Minor] was a victim of coercion.” Demeri said that the second woman, who was jealous of Bellamy, snuck into Minor’s cell and threatened her into having sex, saying “I’ll beat your bitch up.”
So the situation is in fact hypothetical.
Also, female prisoners don't "need to be protected from rape due to the possibility of pregnancy". They need to be protected from rape because rape is bad. And this applies to all prisoners, not just women.
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
The ostensible freedoms Afghans had under the old government are irrelevant given how corrupt and incompetent it was. The Taliban at least have some degree of popular support and accountability. Their victory should lead to the development of a functioning political system, which opens up the possibility of reform in the future.
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
or, for earlier generations, has history in paramilitary/terrorist organizations (e.g. Begin, Allon, Shamir).
The early political class in the Soviet Union and in communist China, Yugoslavia and Albania also earned their power by fighting in a war. How did that work out? Not well for the Soviet Union, China or Albania, I would say. Not sure about Yugoslavia.
Edit: I forgot about the American Revolution. But how many of their early politicians actually fought in the war? I know George Washington did, what about the rest?
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
My understanding is that there was a lot of straight-up rape, i.e., the man physically forcing himself on the woman, who of course couldn't resist because of her status. But admittedly I have no idea how much of the admixture is due to violent rape, how much was "borderline" as you described, and how much was consensual.
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
Not sure what you mean? Is that on my screenshot, or happens to you when you use my css? Can you post a pic showing what you mean?
These lines separating the top-level comments in the default "TheMotte" theme are not visible with "reddit". With my minimal knowledge of CSS and some experimentation, I have determined that this fixes the problem:
.comment-section > .comment ~ .comment {
border-top: 1px solid grey;
}
Oh, that's custom css as well:
This snippet appears to create another bar slightly to the right of the bar seen in "TheMotte". With "reddit", only the new bar is visible. Personally, I prefer the original bar on the left. This makes the original bar visible instead:
.comment .comment-collapse-bar {
border-right: 2px solid grey;
}
So I ended up not using your original snippet, but it helped me make my own custom CSS. Since, as I said, my knowledge of CSS is minimal, I didn't even know where to start before this. Thanks!
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
How did you get the lines on the left to show up with the "reddit" theme? And do you have a fix for the line between top-level comments as well?
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
The plantation owners in question were presumably violent rapists, which is how much of the admixture happened in the first place.
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
TL;DR: Africans do have greater genetic diversity, but "genetic variation is mostly in neutral loci", i.e., greater genetic diversity does not imply greater phenotypic diversity, and even if there is greater variation in one phenotypic trait (e.g. height), this does not imply that there is greater variation in all traits. Correct?
All the reports of men being harassed for taking their child to the park because people are assuming they're some kind of paedophile kidnapper indicate otherwise.
More options
Context Copy link