Ask Lemmygrad

1237 readers

190 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Shaggy0291@lemmygrad.ml

GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml

SovereignState@lemmygrad.ml

QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml

yogthos@lemmygrad.ml

What makes our debunking of Atrocity Propaganda narratives different from "denialism? (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by UminekoEnjoyer@lemmygrad.ml to c/asklemmygrad@lemmygrad.ml

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm asking this question because I used to frequently browse RationalWiki, (A Neoliberal Skeptic website that frequently calls ML's debunkings of Atrocity Propaganda "denialism" and "apologia", and conflates said debunkings with Holocaust denial), and would like some clarification on this point.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Kefla@hexbear.net 35 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Truth?

There's really no difference between Holocaust denial and "holodomor" denial except that one of those things is correct and the other isn't. Holocaust denial isn't bad because you're denying a genocide, it's bad because you're denying a genocide that happened and for which there is overwhelming evidence.

If it were wrong to deny any genocide claim, then the perfect attack to make against any political opponent would be an accusation of genocide. You could accuse literally anyone of genocide at any time and if they deny it suddenly they're the same as a Holocaust denier. Obviously that's absurd and invalid.

[–] 666@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 4 months ago

It's bad because it's also just used as a "thought-terminating cliché" and a form of strict censorship. I get hit off Reddit for questioning the Holodomor.