re: #446 HappyWarrior

Well, some, maybe most of the HDers are liars, but plenty actually believe their BS (don’t forget - a lie is an intentional untruth; one can be an idiot without being a liar).

Those who do not lie while inciting are still inciting. That’s the difference.

On the other hand, the HD pieces can be done without any direct incitement (even though one could argue they’re a part of a larger incitement complex).

E.g. take this denier article:

You won’t find rabid shouting about “Joooz” there. It purports to be a historico-technical analysis of an obscure issue (which will be discussed in the Denial film btw) of the presence or absence of traces of Zyklon B introduction mechanisms in the ruins of the crematoria. Now, the analysis is flawed (though the holes issue was somewhat troublesome for Lipstadt’s side during the trial, with the expert van Pelt even having changed his position on the issue between the verdict and the appeal), even though knowing Renk he must believe he “debunked” something. But I just don’t see how something like this should be punishable by law. In fact, I can see how a mainstream historian can produce a flawed analysis like this pertaining to issues unrelated to the Holocaust. Should such flawed pieces be only punished when they touch on one particular topic?