A qualitative difference
Irritated readers of Talking Philosophy are emailing me to scold me about the removed post on debating David Irving, so just to make things clear: I have nothing to do with TP, I can’t post there, I have no access to the equipment, I don’t make decisions; it’s nothing to do with me. I didn’t take the post down. I work for the magazine, but I have no connection with the blog.
The deniers have the post here.)
I went to the central library today (Sunday) to get Deborah Lipstadt’s Denying the Holocaust and Richard Evans’s Lying About Hitler. Lipstadt says something very apposite to Julian’s question (‘Should I debate a Holocaust denier?) on page 26.
There is a qualitative difference between barring someone’s right to speech and providing him or her with a platform from which to deliver a message.
And it’s a difference that a lot of people, probably especially in the US, have a hard time keeping in mind.
I haven’t been following the talking philosophy thread but your quote about the “difference between barring someone’s right to speech and providing him or her with a platform” reminds me of the last time I saw discussion of this issue when Irving and Griffin came to the Oxford Union.
Some people consistently confuse the two, and I now think it is willful obfuscation to score the same old points about how ‘free speech’ means we have to dedicate our every resource to allowing Irving and Griffin to spreadtheir message.
Nigel Warburton made a very similar point to Deborah’s recently when discussing this question at the opening event of CFI in London. I have to say that I agree.
Oh brilliant, just looked at some of that thread – I hadn’t seen the ‘if you don’t agree to debate Irving he is therefore right and WINS!!!’ gambit before, that’s brilliant, as is the ‘no I’m not going to look at any link or reference you point me to, you must present your evidence for the Holocaust RIGHT HERE (where of course I will be able to point out that it is just so much verbiage you’ve posted – how can rely on that?)’.
And some more linguistic shennanigans – ‘prove Irving falsified stuff’, ‘no, not a link, tell me a single thing he falsified’, ‘hah, that’s only one thing, and anyway, that doesn’t prove the Holocaust happened, SCORE ONE FOR ME!!!’, “What are these “primary materials” of which you speak and in what way do they constitute evidence to support the Holocaust narrative?”, ‘anyway, the Jews did WTC!!!’.
Anybody who wishes to complain can email me. Please leave Ophelia alone! (jkazez@smu.edu)
Julian’s post was about whether to debate these folks–a very interesting question. But then the thread became a debate about whether the Holocaust occurred–a profoundly offensive question. There’s a mountain of evidence that shows it did, and we dishonor the six million who suffered by recognizing the question. If there’s no question to begin with, there’s no debate.
Granted, it was interesting to see the thing gradually unfold and to see the level of insanity of these people, but then it morphed into a very ugly, disrespectful business. At which point my technical limitations forced me to suspend the post instead of closing comments.
My thought now (very much strengthened by this experience) is that the right place to talk about Holocaust denial is in articles, essays, etc. Actually talking to these people implies a level of mutual respect that is inappropriate.
All that being said…(I’ve got to stop!)…yes, what an amazing display of twisted thinking and rhetoric. All very interesting for those who know better, but very very dangerous stuff.
PM, that’s an excellent summary.
Jean, I think Julian couldn’t wish for a better illustration of what he’s up against – the whole thing answered his question quite well.
“I went to the central library today (Sunday)”
So libraries, by your account, OB, in your neck of the woods – obviously open every day of the week! I say, are you altogether devoid of all Christain principles? Do you not think it should be more in your line to be reading the sacred bible on Sunday’s as opposed to reading, Denying the Holocaust and Richard Evans’s, Lying About Hitler.
You should, also, this Ash Wednesday, be heading off to your nearest parish to get ashes on your forehead!
All this ‘denial’ stuff is definitely not good for the soul!
Only some libraries, Marie-Therese. The little one five minutes from me is not open on Sundays – but it doesn’t have the books anyway and I wanted them right that very day, so I took the trouble to trek to the central one.