Alex Jones...

[Josh]

There seems to be some confusion here between “I trust experts” with “I am an expert because I trust experts”.

[Bootstrap]

There seems to be some confusion here between “I trust experts” with “I am an expert because I trust experts”.

Or perhaps confusion between "I trust verifiable facts, and am responding based on the facts" and "I'm not paying attention to the facts, I just want to keep trolling and heckling the people".

You can easily tell the difference. Are people actually responding to the facts?

Or are facts "tainted" because "experts" use them and you want to dislike experts? We do that same thing in so many threads. Can we make up whatever "facts" we want because we are better than those awful "experts" over there?

And of course, that's central to the game Alex Jones plays, too. Facts are just lies made up by experts to deceive you. Now I, Alex Jones, I have the chutzpah to make up whatever I want about those evil Sandy Hook parents and all those evil people who want to deceive you into believing that their children were actually shot. They have evil motives, they want to take away your guns. Most people are too dumb or lazy to know that. They just trust the experts, they can't think for themselves. Ah, but if you listen to me, Alex Jones, then you are smart.

As long as you don't check the facts carefully or think critically. Critical thinking makes you stupid, according to this model. If you want to think for yourself, you simply have to believe whatever they tell you. Just pick your own "they".

[silentreader]

There seems to be some confusion here between “I trust experts” with “I am an expert because I trust experts”.

And evidently, "I am an expert because I don't trust experts".

[Josh]

There seems to be some confusion here between “I trust experts” with “I am an expert because I trust experts”.

And evidently, "I am an expert because I don't trust experts".

I haven’t claimed to be an expert on anything in this thread. I just don’t agree with Ken and Bootstrap’s epistemological approach, and in particular to their reasoning that the experts (that they choose) are automatically right.

[silentreader]

There seems to be some confusion here between “I trust experts” with “I am an expert because I trust experts”.

And evidently, "I am an expert because I don't trust experts".

I haven’t claimed to be an expert on anything in this thread. I just don’t agree with Ken and Bootstrap’s epistemological approach, and in particular to their reasoning that the experts (that they choose) are automatically right.

Has anybody else claimed to be an expert using the criteria you mentioned?

[Bootstrap]

There seems to be some confusion here between “I trust experts” with “I am an expert because I trust experts”.

And evidently, "I am an expert because I don't trust experts".

I haven’t claimed to be an expert on anything in this thread. I just don’t agree with Ken and Bootstrap’s epistemological approach, and in particular to their reasoning that the experts (that they choose) are automatically right.

But that's not what we are saying. And you know that, or should know that. I'm doing my best to find reliable sources for facts, if you have better sources, please supply them and explain why you think they are more reliable. Most of the facts we have been discussing here involve the Holocaust, and that's what Temp was responding to.

Could you make a list of the sources John, Ken, and I have been using and explain which ones you consider most authoritative and why? Or do something to indicate you are actually reading and following the discussion and not just heckling?

[Bootstrap]

"it was listed" - who listed it that way? Could you please reveal your sources?

There was a metal plaque at the Auschwitz visitor center that had been there since the Soviet Union days. The USSR plaque was still there in 1990 with 4 million deaths listed, and the Holocaust revisionists made a big deal out of it when the new government lowered the number to 1 million.

So I got the number wrong. My apology.

Thanks. So I think we agree on the numbers, then.

The Soviet Union also presented lampshades made out of human skin, and soap made out of the fat of dead Jews. Those artifacts are no longer available for DNA testing, for some reason. But if I see a pattern of behavior about how the USSR has reported the Holocaust, then I am the one blamed. So there is no point in discussing it.

One of these claims is true on a small scale. The other is false. There were some lampshades and other artifacts made from human skin, particularly with tattoos. And especially at Buchenwald. For instance:

https://www.buchenwald.de/en/geschichte ... ueberreste
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation ... 01900.html

The stories of soap made from human fat seem to be based on propaganda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap_made ... an_corpses
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-soap-myth

Aaron Breitbart, a senior researcher at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, agreed that the evidence is thin. “The leading scholars of the Holocaust are of the opinion that the Nazis did not make soap,” he says. “It was a cruel rumor at the camps.”

Andrew Hollinger, a spokesman at the USHMM department of media relations, provided a document written by the museum’s historian that concludes: “Available documentary evidence and eyewitness accounts have been unable to corroborate in a conclusive manner reports that the National Socialists and their collaborators used human fat from their victims in the manufacture of soap.” It goes on to say: “rumors that Germans made soap from human remains originated in French propaganda from the First World War.”

Breitbart explains why it is that the scholars must be so careful. “The importance is not to give the Holocaust deniers any opportunity,” he says. “The view of the Holocaust revisionists is, if you can prove something is wrong, then everything is wrong. It gives them an opportunity to cast doubt on the general historical veracity of the Holocaust.”

The phrase "it was a cruel rumor at the camps" makes sense to me. I can easily imagine Nazis telling Jews that the only soap available to them was made from human bodies. Cruelty was intentional at these camps.

This is also relevant: The view of the Holocaust revisionists is, if you can prove something is wrong, then everything is wrong. It gives them an opportunity to cast doubt on the general historical veracity of the Holocaust.” We see this in conspiracy theories all the time. It doesn't matter how often the conspiracy theorist is wrong, they just change the subject and go off on something else. But if an authority is wrong about even one thing, my goodness, everything they have ever said is now wrong. Not just wrong, but an attempt to deceive. And "they" are doing it because they want to do something awful to "us".

[Josh]

But that's not what we are saying. And you know that, or should know that. I'm doing my best to find reliable sources for facts, if you have better sources, please supply them and explain why you think they are more reliable. Most of the facts we have been discussing here involve the Holocaust, and that's what Temp was responding to.

Boot, at various points in time, myself and other people have done this and I put considerable time into finding sources and answering your claims. It was a waste of time, because you simply impeached my sources. I do not want to accuse you of arguing in bad faith but it felt like you simply impeached my sources because you didn't like the data and conclusions I came to based on those sources.

Could you make a list of the sources John, Ken, and I have been using and explain which ones you consider most authoritative and why?

The answer is "no". I'm not going to put in a lot of time into this just because you want me to do so. It is simply not a high priority for me, and I won't be able to convince you anyway.

Or do something to indicate you are actually reading and following the discussion and not just heckling?

I reject that false choice, and I think you should not immediately accuse me of arguing in bad faith and heckling, just like I don't do the same to you. It is not "heckling" to disagree with you.

Fundamentally, you and I have different epistemological approaches. Perhaps neither one is necessarily good or bad. But just as I can't force you to change your approach to mine, you can't force me to, either.

[Bootstrap]

But that's not what we are saying. And you know that, or should know that. I'm doing my best to find reliable sources for facts, if you have better sources, please supply them and explain why you think they are more reliable. Most of the facts we have been discussing here involve the Holocaust, and that's what Temp was responding to.

Boot, at various points in time, myself and other people have done this and I put considerable time into finding sources and answering your claims. It was a waste of time, because you simply impeached my sources. I do not want to accuse you of arguing in bad faith but it felt like you simply impeached my sources because you didn't like the data and conclusions I came to based on those sources.

Well, that's the way you tell the story. I don't think I have generally "simply impeached" sources without giving reasons for believing they are not reliable sources. I think other people are much more likely to "simply impeach" sources than I am. And I think I am discussing things in good faith. Truth and facts do take time and effort. And changing our minds based on the facts as the conversation goes on.

But a lot of this comes down to how we feel about arguments along the lines of - "the experts are wrong, they are trying to get you, I'm the person who knows the answer, listen to me" as opposed to arguments based on comparing the actual facts presented and the degree to which those facts are based on reliable sources.

Could you make a list of the sources John, Ken, and I have been using and explain which ones you consider most authoritative and why?

The answer is "no". I'm not going to put in a lot of time into this just because you want me to do so. It is simply not a high priority for me, and I won't be able to convince you anyway.

But you can offer expert opinions on our sources without thinking carefully about what sources we are using and what they are based on?

Or do something to indicate you are actually reading and following the discussion and not just heckling?

I reject that false choice, and I think you should not immediately accuse me of arguing in bad faith and heckling, just like I don't do the same to you. It is not "heckling" to disagree with you.

But you do, in fact, accuse me of all kinds of things that are not true. You make claims about how I am finding the information that are not true. You imply that I am just Googling for a quick answer and trusting the "experts" and implying that I am some kind of unthinking sheep. And that's the main thing you are doing instead of responding to facts that took me time to put together after looking at a variety of sources and thinking carefully about who to trust and why.

And you do that instead of discussing and responding to whatever I am saying.

Of course it is not "heckling" to disagree with me. The whole point of having conversations is to get more than one point of view into the conversation. But you aren't even saying what you agree with or disagree with. Do you think the things I am saying about the Holocaust are true or false? If you disagree with my reasoning or my sources why?

If you don't even do that much, how is that not heckling?

[Josh]

Well, that's the way you tell the story. I don't think I have generally "simply impeached" sources without giving reasons for believing they are not reliable sources. And I think I am discussing things in good faith. Truth and facts do take time and effort. And changing our minds based on the facts as the conversation goes on.

The two of us can have different perspectives on "the story". Part of what I am saying you did is what you did with someone else who put in significant time and effort, including citing high quality sources. You simply dismissed him off the bat.

After that experience a few times, a person like me decides that it is not a good use of my time to spend hours and hours trying to find sources and data good enough for you. There are many other, more useful things I could be doing.

But a lot of this comes down to how we feel about arguments along the lines of - "the experts are wrong, they are trying to get you, I'm the person who knows the answer, listen to me" as opposed to arguments based on comparing the actual facts presented and the degree to which those facts are based on reliable sources.

I have never said I am the person with all of the answers and that everyone should listen to me.

I find the attitude of "These are the experts (whom I agree with), you should listen to them (and by extension, me)" to be very much what you are accusing others of doing.

Could you make a list of the sources John, Ken, and I have been using and explain which ones you consider most authoritative and why?

The answer is "no". I'm not going to put in a lot of time into this just because you want me to do so. It is simply not a high priority for me, and I won't be able to convince you anyway.

But you can offer expert opinions on our sources without thinking carefully about what sources we are using and what they are based on?

In short, no. I have no ability to come up with expert opinions and sources that will be good enough for you.

Again, I don't want to accuse you of arguing in bad faith, but I believe that you prefer sources and data that back up the beliefs/opinions that you already hold. This is a very natural thing to do and many people do this.

But you do, in fact, accuse me of all kinds of things that are not true. You make claims about how I am finding the information that are not true. You imply that I am just Googling for a quick answer and trusting the "experts" and implying that I am some kind of unthinking sheep. And that's the main thing you are doing instead of responding to facts that took me time to put together after looking at a variety of sources and thinking carefully about who to trust and why.

Boot, my biggest complaint with you in recent times has been that you'll often cut and paste GPT responses and then cite that as authoritative in a discussion. The rest of us have not agreed that ChatGPT is some kind of authority around here. Likewise, I don't think Googling something and then looking for the consensus answer always leads us to the truth, either. I have never said you're an unthinking sheep.

Of course it is not "heckling" to disagree with me. The whole point of having conversations is to get more than one point of view into the conversation. But you aren't even saying what you agree with or disagree with. Do you think the things I am saying about the Holocaust are true or false? If you disagree with my reasoning or my sources why?

Boot, I haven't disagreed with you on the Holocaust at all... are you confusing me with JohnHurt?

If you don't even do that much, how is that not heckling?

Not choosing to have the debate on you terms is not the same as "heckling". Some things aren't worth debating (I would actually consider the Holocaust denial/affirmation is one of them; I think it's completely pointless to debate it on an open Internet forum like this.)