site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34449 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 13, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

15
Top Bottom New Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

no mass grave has ever been excavated from the site and it is in fact forbidden to do so because it would allegedly violate Jewish burial law.

So Treblinka does seem to be an example where some people have made the argument you note, though this did not stop excavations:

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/archaeologists-delicately-dig-nazi-death-camp-secrets-treblinka-n66241

https://www.livescience.com/44443-treblinka-archaeological-excavation.html

Of course, whether that is evidence against "Holocaust denial" depends on what you mean by that term, since it covers many different possible positions. Not all "Holocaust deniers" actually deny that there were mass killings of Jews by the Nazis.

So Treblinka does seem to be an example where some people have made the argument you note, though this did not stop excavations:

I linked the documentary portraying her research where Poland's Chief Rabbi (with a New York accent) told her she has to stop excavating if she comes across a mass grave.

However, I am certain that she did dig trenches in search of mass graves, so she could have at least found one and stopped per the orders of the rabbi and that would have by far been the most important discovery of her research. But none of her trenches discovered any mass graves. She can say after the fact that she wasn't looking for them per orders, but I think she did dig trenches to try to find them and has a built-in plausible deniability for why she didn't find any.

But in any case, officially the excavations were not looking for mass graves and indeed she did not find any. The GPR results are what have been used to identify the alleged mass graves- not excavations. Any sane person who was actually dedicated to the scientific truth of the matter would of course follow up the GPR analysis with excavations, and in both cases when the parties refuse to do it that should be regarded as highly suspicious.

Holocaust deniers emphasize the sheer quantity that human remains that would have to exist in this small area at the scale alleged, for example:

And finally, we must note that the teeth of the supposed victims could not have been destroyed by the primitive methods attested to. Even if each of the alleged victims had only 20 of the usual 32 teeth left at the time he or she died, there would have been at least 17.5 million teeth to be disposed of at Treblinka. This means that we should still be able to find some 5 teeth per cubic foot of the 3.53 million cu.ft. of material excavated at the alleged site of the crime.

Her excavations didn't find any graves containing these huge quantities of remains, but she did find fossilized shark teeth from when Poland was covered by an ocean millions of years ago. The narrator concludes, "it appears here that the Nazi coverup was effective." So it goes.

Her excavations didn't find any graves containing these huge quantities of remains

Thank you for clarifying that you're talking about weak Holocaust denial (it happened, but not on the orthodox scale) rather than denying that there were mass killings of Jews, on a greater scale than, say, David Irving would argue.

Her excavations weren't on on a scale to find such quantities as you describe, so that's not an interesting result. However, insofar as they looked, they apparently found lots of remains:

Brick walls and foundations from the gas chambers remain, as do massive amounts of human bone, including fragments now eroding out on the forested ground surface.

"For me, that was quite shocking," said project leader Caroline Sturdy Colls, a forensic archaeologist who normally works with police to find modern murder victims. "These artifacts are there, and these human remains are on the surface, and they're not being recorded or recovered."

Indeed, when the archaeology team began digging to confirm the lidar results, they uncovered shoes, ammunition, and bones — including bones with cut marks indicating that the victims had been stabbed or otherwise assaulted.

The part of the Holocaust denial debates that you are describing doesn't seem parallel to the current state of the dialectic with respect to the Residential Schools mass graves, where the question is their existence rather than scale.

The part of the Holocaust denial debates that you are describing doesn't seem parallel to the current state of the dialectic with respect to the Residential Schools mass graves, where the question is their existence rather than scale.

I feel like there's also a substantial clouding with the fact that life on the Canadian frontier was genuinely tough with high youth mortality, and there's reasons why a residential school might have earnest reasons to have a mass grave nearby due to Tuberculosis outbreaks et al. People seem to reflexively frame this as though the region at that point in history was operating on 2020 healthcare norms.

True, although it's also the case that a lot of people were dying in Europe during WWII, though not on a scale that would explain all the missing Jews.

There is no aspect of Holocaust denial that claims Jews were not killed. It was a war where 50 million civilians were killed, including many Jews.

The Holocaust claim is that 750,000 - 1 million people were murdered and buried on the site. I strongly deny that, not just the scale being a little inflated. That is not the same as claiming Jews were not killed in the war, any more than denying the Kamloops graves is not "soft denial" if you acknowledge that children did indeed die of various causes at the time in question.

It is exactly the same. Mainstream historiography says "we identified the graves containing the remains of up to a million people with GPR, here they are, but we have not and will not excavate them." Holocaust deniers say they should be excavated, while mainstream authorities claim they do not need to be excavated to prove their existence. It's the same thing.

Her excavations weren't on on a scale to find such quantities as you describe, so that's not an interesting result.

The point is that the sheer scale of the crime in such a small, known location would make trivial to find huge quantities of remains. A small scale excavation ought to be able to find enormous quantities of remains extremely easily.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats