Let’s say better late than never.

  • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Fucking GOOD.

    Hopefully we’ll also have laws against denying the holocaust israel is inflicting on palestine TOO.

  • Taalnazi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Good, but add Armenian and Gaza genocide denial to the list too. Or make it genocide denial in general.

    • Omega@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Armenian and Gaza is fully confirmed, but human rights violations of Xinjiang not so much, it’s semantics at that much, like calling the modern Turkish state genocidal for destroying the culture of Kurds in northern Syria, when it was not explicitly to destroy the people itself

        • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          No, “cultural genocide” is not genocide. There is a pretty clear legal definition:

          … any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

          (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; © Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

          • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            It’s pretty hilarious how tankies suddenly start quibbling over definitions once China is mentioned.

            Where’s that definition from?

            • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Raphael Lemkin, who first coined the term, defined genocide as “the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group” by means such as “the disintegration of [its] political and social institutions, of [its] culturelanguage, national feelings, religion, and [its] economic existence”.[2]During the struggle to ratify the Genocide Convention, powerful countries restricted Lemkin’s definition to exclude their own actions from being classified as genocide,[3][4] ultimately limiting it to any of five “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.[5] While there are many scholarly definitions of genocide,[6]almost all international bodies of law officially adjudicate the crime of genocide pursuant to the Genocide Convention.[7]

              From that wiki page, and I appreciate the just barely academically masked sass about why it’s such a narrow definition

              • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                So is regime change to bring about a liberal democratic government also considered cultural genocide? Like if I’m working against the Saudi monarchy and Wahhabi religious order of laws (which is their long term culture) am I guilty of genocide?

                Was the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan cultural genocide? Is forced rendition or even “nation building” genocide? Guantanamo? Rendition?

                Are Starbucks and McDonalds guilty of genocide for spreading their “franchises” (Temples of a neoliberal globalist culture really) everywhere?

                Is the “culture war” against the institutional racism in the USA a cultural genocide? After all it’s a culture of racism… are the atheists really conducting a cultural genocide with their War on Christmas!? Oh God! Are we the baddies???

                If you’re in Finland, don’t deny any of this! It’s illegal now!

                PS: Sorry this is a late reply, and obviously it’s argued to absurdity.

        • HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’d swear that there is a message group specifically for .ml users to jump in whenever any criticism is leveled at China.

  • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    It’s too bad we can’t make being a fucking idiot illegal, but then there wouldn’t be anywhere near enough prisons.

  • scarabic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I seriously believe that in an adult society you can set one or two historically damaging things aside from “freedom of speech.” I believe it was Trevor Noah who explained that when black people took back South Africa from its apartheid masters, they didn’t burn those people at the stake or prosecute them out of existence or even steal all their property. They just said you won’t be ruling this country like that anymore OH and that ONE WORD… you don’t get to say that ONE WORD ever again.

  • andros_rex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I need people to pay attention to the popularity of denial of the mass killings by Nazis of transgender people. One of the doctors who performed the first vaginoplasty, on Dora Richter, did also go on to participate in brutal abuses in a concentration camp. Like a dung beetle, a group is rolling around this tiny kernel of truth, coalescing in a ball of shit that ends up like this.

    There’s something so vile about this. It has to be deliberate.

    DuckDuckGo and Google have always had at least one denialist result in every single Google search I have made about the Holocaust. Back in 2010 - in high school, I remember reading half of a book online which seemed to be the memoirs of an American World War 2 soldier, than abruptly realizing that he was starting to say some really strange things. Never anything quite wrong, but off. I did a little googling, a bit more research, and then started running into names like David Irving.

    It’s just such a damn difficult problem to fix. They are insidious. Deniers know that the Holocaust happened. They know that trans people were brutalized and massacred by the Nazis, whether you feel like the “purpose” of the mass killings makes it a genocide or not.

    They don’t care. They want stupid people to believe it, because then you can get the stupid people to look the other way. To laugh at people pointing out the patterns.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      One of the doctors who performed the first vaginoplasty, on Dora Richter, did also go on to participate in brutal abuses in a concentration camp.

      TIL, design of the freezing experiments and he later wrote on them. Worked at the Charité at the time of doing the vaginaplasty, from what I can tell seems to have been a star surgeon. Surgery attracts psychopaths, he probably could not give less of a fuck about the ethics of anything but was interested in the technical aspects. Dora Richter’s surgery was a joint effort with Ludwig Levy-Lenz, generally credited as the father of sex reassignment surgery and working at the Hirschfeld Institute itself. Not terribly surprising they collaborated with the Charité on a novel procedure, it was and is one of the very best hospitals in the world. Not indicted in the Doctor’s trials, you probably do not want to read up on what those people did. I’m serious.

  • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I mean, the holocaust definitely happened, was horrific, and people who deny it either deny history happened at all of are conspiracy theorists, but I don’t like the precedent set by the government specifying what opinions are allowed to have - it doesn’t sound like something we should be celebrating, and anyway, banning opinions just drives them underground, if you want to regulate people’s thoughts you have to legalise them.

    • gaja@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      But it’s not an opinion. It’s a fact. It should be illegal for me to claim I’m disabled when I’m not or that bleach cures autism. Misinformation should be illegal.

      • MoonlightFox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Disinformation is spreading misinformation on purpose, knowing that it is incorrect.

        Spreading misinformation should (in my opinion) not be illegal in itself, people should in many cases be given the benefit of the doubt. It might be ignorance.

        A judge/jury should decide if it is done knowingly.

        • Panq@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          As long as the punishment is fair and not unduly harsh, I don’t see any real problem with criminalising misinformation in general. It’s already illegal to lie about facts in a great many contexts (e.g. fraud, perjury), and reasonable people don’t have a hugely difficult time distinguishing a fact from an opinion.

          As a trivial example: “This is mine and you can have it for a dollar” is not an opinion someone can be entitled to, it is a statement of fact that is either true or not.

    • MoonlightFox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      First off, I am a bit torn here, but will take the opposing side for arguments sake.

      This is not an opinion. The holocaust happened, that makes it a fact.

      I get your point, but should disinformation (as in deliberate misinformation) be allowed? How much harm should we accept from people spreading disinformation before we do something? The harm here being antisemitism.

      Antisemitism is growing because people do not differentiate Israel and Jewish people. Many jews report that they do not feel safe in otherwise safe countries.

      This is a hard question. Not sure what I think… Might be side effects that are hard to foresee

    • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      banning opinions just drives them underground

      which means fewer people will find them and engage with them.

      You’re going to get more people turning to Nazis if it’s just out and about in the open. If YouTube was running ads for nazisim, they’d get converts. If the only nazi stuff you see is scribbled on the bathroom walls, it has less legitimacy and thus fewer converts.

    • hark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Agreed. People imagine the best case scenario for these kinds of bans, like calls to criminalize “misinformation” but what happens when the government is headed by Donald “Fake News” Trump and suddenly what you know to be fact is labelled “misinformation”? People were getting cancelled for speaking out against the invasion of Iraq, now imagine if it became a crime to deny that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

      • Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Your argument only works if you assume that this sets some precedence for fascists to use. It doesn’t, fascists like Trump will implement fake news laws anyway. In fact Holocaust denial is illegal in quite a lot of countries for quite a while now, most of them democracies (in number, not necessarily km²). Obviously you have to be reeeeally careful with any legislation that somehow restricts any freedom (like freedom of speech), but since every freedom requires boundaries to ensure other freedoms (like the freedom to live in peace and safety) and this is a historical, culture-defining fact and not some political agenda, we are absolutely fine.

        • hark@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I agree that fascists will try to force through what they can, but there is a wide range on the political spectrum outside of fascism, and they wouldn’t force through fake news laws like fascists, but they will take advantage of legal tools provided to them. A domestic mass surveillance program, the likes of which a fascist would want, was instituted by Bush and then continued and expanded by Obama. The justification was to combat terrorism, which would seem like a worthwhile goal, but I’d argue the negatives far outweigh any supposed positives.

          Additionally, having these tools laying around only makes the job of fascists easier. Fascists still have to work within the legal framework set up before them, at least initially. Sure, they can try to ignore and force through measures, but the courts have legal backing to challenge them. A blanket misinformation law would make it so much easier for fascists to label something as misinformation and the courts can’t do anything about it.

          In this case, it’s specifically about outlawing Holocaust denial, so I can’t imagine it being abused, but at the same time, I can’t imagine it doing much to stop fascism. It’s such a highly specific law, it even causes some to think “why only outlaw Holocaust denial and not the denial of other atrocities?” and that’s where the opportunity for a more general law comes in, which increases the potential for abuse.

      • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        well - there’s an ongoing major genocide happening in Gaza that unfortunately no longer pales in comparison. It’s not up there yet, and let’s hope it never gets there, but I definitely see the point of the question of the previous comment.

        • RedFrank24@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’m not sure they’re really comparable. The Holocaust was industrialized murder on racial grounds. Gaza and the West Bank are more like the genocide of the Native Americans. A sort of “Give us the land you’re sitting on, or die. I don’t care where you go” as opposed to “I’m going to kill you. No there’s nothing you can do. You are the wrong race and must die”

          • Katana314@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            I don’t even think that’s as much of a distinction as you think.

            In 1930s Germany, the Nazi platform was “We’re going to relocate these Jews. We’ll make some kind of settlement for them, or shift them to other nations, who knows.”

            Maybe at the end of the war the Holocaust - their “final solution” for the relocation problem was made clear, but even then anyone could have raised questions about where there were going.

            Political excuses like “Relocation” are extremely common for Genocide.

            • RedFrank24@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              The ‘relocation’ wasn’t based on anything the Jews had that the Nazis wanted though, not in terms of physical land anyway. Wealth, sure, but the Nazis weren’t going after Jews because they had money. The Slavs were gone after for land, definitely, because the Nazis wanted all the land to the east and were happy to just murder anyone and everyone living on it, but even that was based on genetics because the Nazis believed the Slavs to be an inferior species.

              Again, what Israel is doing is definitely genocide, there’s no arguments there, but it’s not the same as the Holocaust. There’s a reason the Holocaust is seen as more evil than the Holodomor, and it’s because of the sheer industrial evil of it all. A systematic extermination of a people based purely on genetics has some extra weight to it.

              • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                Wealth, sure, but the Nazis weren’t going after Jews because they had money.

                That’s not entirely matching what I learned from history books. The German Nazis absolutely commit robber/murders. They just extended their murder spree to those of the same ethnicity and other “out-groups” who didn’t own anything to steal.

                Again, what Israel is doing is definitely genocide, there’s no arguments there, but it’s not the same as the Holocaust.

                No argument there, note my original wording “it no longer pales in comparison”. The Gaza genocide already has millions of victims and tens of thousands of murdered palestinians. That’s unfortunately starting to become visible even on a scale that takes the Holocaust as reference.

                • RedFrank24@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  That’s not entirely matching what I learned from history books. The German Nazis absolutely commit robber/murders. They just extended their murder spree to those of the same ethnicity and other “out-groups” who didn’t own anything to steal.

                  It wasn’t “Those people have money, therefore we shall rob them” though. It was “Those people are Jews, therefore they deserve to get robbed”. They were an acceptable target because they were Jewish, not because they had any money.

          • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            A sort of “Give us the land you’re sitting on, or die. I don’t care where you go” as opposed to “I’m going to kill you. No there’s nothing you can do. You are the wrong race and must die”

            Imagine believing this is a reasonable distinction.

            • RedFrank24@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              It’s a really important distinction if you’re not a moron. The Nazis rounded up undesireables and killed them. There was no ‘loyalty’, there was nothing those undesireables could have done that would have changed what, in the eyes of the Nazi regime, should have happened to them. They were rounded up, shipped off to camps and exterminated, based purely on their genetics or even perceived genetics.

              What Israel is doing is genocide, but it’s not the same as The Holocaust. Israel has a Palestinian population inside its borders, they have voting rights, they have seats in their Parliament. The Nazi Regime would have never allowed ANY of their chosen undesireables to have any representation, because the entire purpose of the undesireables was to be killed.

              Now, compare what Israel is doing to Palestinians to what the US Colonies did to the Native Americans, and suddenly it’s a lot more comparable. The Colonists showed up, took land, forced the Native Americans out, and if the Natives resisted in any way, they were murdered. Any attacks on Colonists by Natives were met with overwhelming force and wholesale massacres of Native populations. Sounds a bit similar to Gaza, doesn’t it? Americans just don’t like to make the comparison because then it suddenly puts them in the genocidal hot seat.

          • Ferrous@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            “Give us the land you’re sitting on, or die. I don’t care where you go”

            If the Israelis truly didn’t care where the Palestinians went, they wouldn’t be confining them to a 25-mile long open air prison. Extermination is the goal.

              • Ferrous@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                What’s your point?

                Palestinians in Gaza are not allowed to freely travel to the West Bank.

                You’re making a lot of claims about what’s going on in Gaza and making huge, sweeping statements that attempt to correlate Palestinians’ experience with others in history. I recommend you read about what is actually going on in Gaza before continuing. You seem ignorant about some of their most basic and fundamental struggles.

                • RedFrank24@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  My point is the genocide of the Palestinians is more than just Gaza. The bombing of Gazans is a war crime, yes, but that in and of itself is not genocide. The settlements in the West Bank and overall encroachment on Palestinian territory is genocide, and that’s been going on for decades. If Israel and Egypt suddenly allowed people to leave Gaza and go to the West Bank, it wouldn’t stop the genocide, nor would stopping the bombing or the killings in Gaza, because the fact that Israel is allowing their colonists to displace Palestinians at all is enough to say that their intent is genocidal in nature.

                  You’re so caught up in the emotive rhetoric about Gaza that you’re ignoring the actual issue at hand. It’s like if the bombings weren’t happening at all, you wouldn’t actually give a shit.

  • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Censorship just hides it. Better would be to educate them. Make them meet with survivors, send them to the remaining concentration camps.

    • Banana@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I don’t know if this is really censorship in that way. Like yeah don’t hide the genocide, hide the denial, because it doesn’t deserve a platform. Holocaust denial has no basis in reality, especially considering it’s one of the most well documented genocides of all time.

      Don’t censor history, teach the children about all the bad shit humans have done.

  • ssillyssadass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    It should be illegal everywhere. Germany knows how to deal with Nazis (well, unless they’re part of a party)

    • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Others were the ones who dealt with Nazis not Germany.

      Let’s not whitewash the forced compliance of Germany with what was imposed on them by the nations which had to fight them to stop them as some kind of achievement of Germany.

      Germany kept most of the Nazis around - not the “upper management” but certainly the “middle management” and below - doing the jobs in the State appartus that they did before.

      Probably explains both the rise of the AfD and how still now after Israel has been for over a year fully and unashamedly acting in a way painfully similar to Nazism - just with different ubermenschen and untermenschen (or as Israeli politicians say it, “chosen people” and “human animals”) - almost the entirety of the German political class continues to unwaveringly support them, overtly because of the dominant ethnicity of that nation, a purely Racist rationale.

      Change from the inside changes mindsets, change imposed from the outside mainly changes the visible expressions of the mindsets rather than the mindsets themselves.