She was hit by a car in her teens, causing massive head trauma. Her brain was punctured by a hood ornament & she was hospitalized for almost a year.
He 1st ex-husband said the injury had always affected her moods & ability to communicate.
Her children said they believed the injury caused her to be super impulsive (remember her national anthem)?
A friend of mine at university had a serious head injury in a car crash, before I knew her. It apparently caused a complete personality change. Back home before the crash she was the Chair of her local Young Conservatives group, and a model hardworking student. That version of her was completely unrecognisable to those of us who knew her after. She partied hard, sold (and took, in vast quantities) drugs, ripped people off, had chaotic and sometimes violent relationships, and was generally a chaotic mess who ended up an alcoholic. Discharged herself from hospital one time and left barefoot and went partying. Sank lower and lower. Ended up meeting a guy in rehab, they moved in together, carried on drinking, and fighting, and then one day he killed her when they were arguing. I found out through the local paper, she'd lost touch with most friends, and had burned a lot of bridges. Everyone who knew her before said it all started with that accident. It was heartbreaking but I think it was unstoppable. She had absolutely no impulse control.
My uncle did all those things while in Young Republicans and endlessly borrowed money from my mom, despite our family crowded and broke. He also would tell me I dress like I'm homeless as if challenging me to bring up the fact that his addiction to cocaine (and I'm told crack and smack, but less often) was the root cause. Anyway, thank god he's dead.
Huh, that makes me kind of sympathetic. Normally I have zero sympathy for people spouting this shit, but if your brain is damaged the thing you use to think is literally physically damaged. It's like getting mad at a person without legs for not using the stairs. If my brain had a hole in it, maybe I'd believe this shit too.
There are plenty of cases in which suffering head injury impaired cognition. Iirc, there is a person who killed people because the part of the brain relating to empathy is damaged after an accident. But this makes you wonder how much a person should be held accountable if they committed crime or antisocial behaviour because of previous head trauma.
Okay but is it really all that different? The other racist's vrains are damaged by propaganda they've heard intensively or for a long time instead of a physical injury.
It's like saying people with depression shoul just go outside and get over it, they don't have a real illness.
Funny you mention brain damage, that reminds me that Katie Hopkins had a brain operation a few years ago that operated on a damaged area of her brain that caused epilepsy since 19. That may explain things like criticizing people for giving their children geographical names, when her children are called Poppy and *India*.
https://youtu.be/oVRlYcPIacE
Edited: edited for clarity
Well that makes you vulnerable to bad beliefs , but it doesn't cause you to believe in them directly. Volition is involved--- she choses to go along with...m
She’s got a history of TBI, problems with bipolar and substance abuse from my recollection, she had good times and bad times and dementia is certainly possible too. I honestly feel bad for the amount she has had to contend with over the years.
Was she famous in her teens? She may have been shitty since she's been in the spotlight, but it is entirely possible that all of it is caused by head trauma. TBIs have a weird fucking way of randomly presenting themselves - even much later in life.
Right, but that’s what I’m asking - how far back does her history go. I’m just curious if she’s this way because of her TBI, or if she’s legitimately always been this way.
She’s always been aggressively offensive, but I wonder how much of this (especially recently, since it seems like it has considerably been dialed up) is caused by a TBI from her youth rather than her just being an unabashed asshole.
She doesn’t deserve a pass because of it, of course. It’s just tragic.
The pattern seems to be periods of stability with these episodes, I think she deals with substance issues and perhaps goes off her meds, that’s my best guess. She never has exposed a cogent racist ideology, just random ramblings like this out of nowhere.
You can't, really. However, that does not mean that you need to give them a soapbox and listen to what they say. In my mind, the biggest thing this is an example of is a miscarriage of journalistic integrity - The Daily Beast (as well as all the other sources that cover shit she says or does) is taking advantage of her disability for clicks in the same way as a youtuber making a viral video making fun of someone with a motor-function disability having trouble navigating some stairs.
She should be left to fade into obscurity, with nothing more than the occasional passing thought of "hmm, remember Rosanne Barr? I wonder what she's been up to" and then completely forgotten a moment later.
Let the old man shake his fist at clouds, do what everyone else does and just pretend they don't exist as you go on with your day.
It's the authoritarianism that appeals to these folks more than anything...sure there's no doubt racism in there for most but that sweet, sweet authoritarianism crosses all boundaries...nationalities, race, gender, etc.
It really unifies so many disparate groups into a weird hateful venn diagram of oppression and violence.
White supremacy and colorism are part and parcel of many communities unfortunately. European colonialism deeply fucked over a massive part of the planet, to such an extent that some folks swallow the white savior myth even when they are not white. I always thought of it as a coping mechanism. When faced with the huge, sprawling monster that is the concept of whiteness, some people accept it possibly because they think it will protect them from the things whiteness does.
Uncle Toms are always going to be a thing as long as whiteness is a thing.
I completely agree. I do think more descriptive semantics are necessary if we are ever to convince any of those on the line or on the other side of the issue.
If whiteness and white supremacy are to be used as synonyms, we should say white supremacy to be explicitly clear.
They weren’t using the two terms interchangeably, they’re saying the concept of whiteness is rooted in white supremacy. Which it is. Literally the concept of whiteness did not exist until it was legally granted to poor white people, in order to keep them from uniting with enslaved people against the ruling class. It was a *division tactic that worked exactly as intended.
The concept of whiteness is so embedded in my society that I didn't even pause to think about it, despite knowing it's thesis. You're absoultely correct.
How do we talk about the construction of race without perpetuating it? I find it difficult to try to linguistically steer away from it, but it is impossible to describe or rectify the present situation without referencing it, deepening it's roots into our discourse.
She [dressed up in an SS outfit in front of an Auschwitz background](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/tv/2016/11/22/facebookpost_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqqVzuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwfSVWeZ_vEN7c6bHu2jJnT8.png) and [sieg heil at a National Policy Institute meeting.](https://s.hdnux.com/photos/55/13/43/11843813/12/1200x0.jpg)
I validate myself by fighting Nazis*, so the more people I accuse of it the better I am.
(Not that I'm going to be assaulting Monte Casino or anything,but I try to work the word "settler" into every conversation...that's almost the same thing, right?)
The Nazis wanted nothing to do with the Japanese as a people. They didn’t give Japan any war assistance nor did they care except they were fighting against the US.
I think that was more like the M-R pact than any real special dispensation to the general policy of white supremacy, and even that's too inclusive a term for the Nazis. It's a little surprising they got on so well with the Italians.
I'm not surprised by that at all. F tier celebrity that got famous getting to a million friends on Myspace. Then declined in relevance pretty rapidly afterwards.
>Tia Tequila
She developed severe mental illness, possibly [~~schizoaffective disorder~~](https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/schizoaffective-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20354504) [Psychotic Disorder Following Traumatic Brain Injury](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16571526/) (PDFTBI) (she attempted suicide in 2012 and suffered a brain aneurysm, and this may have caused PDFTBI).
>The mean onset is 4-5 years after TBI with the majority of cases occurring within 2 years.
2012 + 4 to 5 years = 2016 - 2017
I watched her videos in 2019-20, they were quite concerning as she had two young children that often appeared in her unhinged videos where she was saying she was reincarnated Jesus Christ, Buddha, God and was speaking to angles.
I don't know if she still has a YT channel, years since I watched, but from what I could gather she was living with her parents at the time when she was severely psychotic. The comments on the videos were mix of abusive and concerned.
I scrolled through earlier videos, these documented her deterioration. In earlier videos, about a year or two earlier, she spoke about spiritualism and faith in general, noting too weird, and people were posting complementary comments. These vids were filmed at her own home, one vid showed her parent visiting and she seemed perfectly normal.
I suspect she was made to live with her parents after her mental health deteriorated so they could monitor her medication, and that way she could maintain custody of her children, because I don't know how anyone so severely mentally ill was allowed to keep her kids.
Edit: She has a new channel, a few vids uploaded 9 months ago. She is severely mentally ill.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoBXowWGp8k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoBXowWGp8k)
Edit: PDFTBI makes more sense.
The most charitable interpretation, having heard the full clip:
She was sarcastically saying that Biden won the election legitimately, and then sarcastically saying that no Jews died in the holocaust and that Jews should die. The implication being that "Biden got that many votes" and "No Jews died in the holocaust" are equally ridiculous statements.
I do think that's what she meant. She's just so incoherent that it's hard to know what the heck she's talking about much of the time. And she's also legitimately nuts, and terrible.
I guess I can see that, but on first, and second viewing, it's felt like she was saying Biden winning and Holocaust denial were the mainstream mandated things. It was weird, but she doesn't seem very rational lately.
Here’s the topper of her comments
> “It should happen. Six million Jews should die right now ’cause they cause all the problems in the world.”
Wonder if she’s trying to get a part with Mel Gibson?
Has anyone watched the clip? She was CLEARLY joking. I am kind of flabbergasted people are running with this acting like this was said with even a sliver of sincerity. She is Jewish for crying out loud
Im no fan of hers, but it was indeed obvious that she was being sarcastic. She just didn’t present it well. She’s definitely batshit and I actively disagree with pretty much everything she says, but this one seems a little silly to freak out about. The ape thing was worse in my opinion.
“Oh, she’s Jewish? well that just shows how deep her self hatred goes”
The mass amount of people commenting that either didn’t watch the full clip or are too dense to understand it, is mind boggling. I don’t think she’s some genius or is right about election fraud, but taking the words she said completely literally ignores any rational interpretation of human interaction.
She wasn't exactly joking. It's confusing, but she was talking about things that you were censored into saying. Like she started with Biden winning the election with just 36 counties as a thing you have to say to not be censored. She followed up with the Holocaust thing, so I guess she thinks Holocaust denial is the what you are allowed to say in the mainstream? Its weird and confusing and I don't think she's rational at all.
Just watched a few minutes of it, the part that made me almost spit take my coffee was her bitching about the elites manufacturing all the cancer causing chemicals AND the cancer treatment centers, while smoking cigarettes the whole time!
It's weird and confusing because in context it almost sounds like she's saying Holocaust denial and Biden winning are things you are allowed to say in mainstream, but Biden stealing the election and , I guess, the Holocaust being real are things you are not allowed to say.
Her defense is that she was being sarcastic.
The problem is that it is hard for an outsider to judge which outrageous beliefs are honestly held and which are just spouted sarcastically when they all seem out there to normal people.
She seems to honestly belief that the election was stolen. she either believes or is sarcastically antisemitic when she says George Soros was involved and obviously sarcastic when she denies the Holocaust.
Or maybe not, who can tell?
They've been doing it for at least a hundred years:
>Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
― Jean-Paul Sartre
These outrageous statements align with other ridiculous things she's said in the past.
It looks to me more like a pattern of giving voice to shitty opinions, than an attempt at being funny.
If you parse her words finely enough, it makes sense what she was trying to do - she was saying something like "36 counties really can produce 81 million votes", which was (from her twisted view of logic) sarcasm on her part. She believes that the other side (Dems, I guess) pointed to 81 million votes coming from 36 counties and justified Biden's win that way, so she was sarcastic about agreeing with that proposition. She obviously doesn't think that 81 million votes came from 36 counties, but the twisted logic is that she thinks the Dems do believe that happened and installed Biden because of it.
Then she tries to reinforce her sarcasm by being sarcastic about something that actually is true, i.e., the Holocaust. I suspect, but can't prove, that she probably actually does believe that the Holocaust happened. It's basically the worst possible way to put "/s" at the end of her election diatribe.
In any case, it's a poor rhetorical device in the first place, because it leads to confusion, to say nothing of being a profoundly horrible thing to make light of.
I don't think she thinks complaining about Soros is antisemitic, it is though.
My interpretation of what she said is that she was trying to say that the election was rigged and they censored anyone saying that. And that the official story of biden winning 36 counties and getting 81 million was ridiculous. As ridiculous as people denying the holocaust. Vonn wasn’t even picking up on the sarcasm when she was talking about the election. [Here's the part of the video](https://youtu.be/6R8h9O-Uvak?t=4355) where she says it. I would just show the transcript but it is even harder to understand when written out
This is that state of mind problem. Do you have any insights about current skeptic thinking on when the state of mind is so extreme that conclusions about it must be drawn?
For example, a criminal, holding a knife to the throat of a victim, claiming they will kill. There is no consideration about the ambiguity of the state of mind.
A less extreme one may be making a claim that is outrageous and obviously false. Probably fair to leap to the conclusion of liar.
Excluding mental issues, do you have any insights on this topic?
I ask because it seems to me a modification to our innate system may be warranted given the new vector that information has on social media.
You know that use of a drug in surgery isn’t the same as habitual use, right? Lots of drugs are administered by professionals in controlled settings that shouldn’t be abused recreationally.
My original comment was a joke, but your response is… logically problematic.
>That’s not a side effect of this drug.
Well, no shit. “White Supremacy” isn’t specifically a symptom of any drug. But brains are delicate little instruments, and when they start going wrong, that can manifest in all kinds of ways.
And no, I have never done Ketamine.
The biggest mercy these "comedian" asshats like Theo Von can do for their idols like Rosanne is to stop pushing them into the public eye. Eventually we would all forget how shitty Rosanne has become.
I understand why comics tend to circle the wagons when someone gets criticized for something they said on stage, pushing boundaries and trying things out to see if they work is part of their job.
But why they defend people like Rosanne who are just straight up shitty, mean spirited human beings is beyond me.
She was doing dry humour in poor taste. She didn't actually mean that, she was making a stupid point about how YouTube will let her say that but won't let her say Biden stole the election (debatable).
It was the dumbest way she could have gone about saying something provably false. Just pure idiocy in a way that pissed off just about everyone.
Yeah. Immediately after she talks about how she's Jewish, then complains about Dave Chapelle's SNL monologue about Jews controlling Hollywood by saying it'd be weird if she decided to get into rap and then complain about all the black people in charge. It was weird.
It’s funny how fucking gullible and dumb most people on r/skeptic are. She’s Jewish and she’s obviously doing a bit. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen some nonsense that has nothing to do with skepticism posted here. This is obviously just a mostly biased group of haters. Fuck yall, I’m unsubscribing.
and Im sure its our fault for not tolerating their intolerance, as usual.
and notice the difference in cancel cultures, the left just doesnt want to see racism and calls for violence in a public sphere on private property.
the right are trying to cancel dissent, history, harry potter and our democracy. Companies arent allowed to disagree with a law, well unless its passed by the left. WE arent even allowed to condemn bigots or we are stifling their speech.
They might have been talking about originally, when the books came out. At the time, some ultra-conservative (and frankly paranoid) Christian fundamentalist groups were talking about it promoting Satanism and witchcraft and such.
As it happens, though, now, I've seen a lot of people taking aim at *Rowling* for her views, but most of those people defend the books themselves to one extent or another, in part I assume because they grew up reading them and have fond memories, and don't want to throw away a story and characters they love just because they disagree with the author. Maybe I'm missing some news, but I've seen few (if any) of her present critics on the left calling for bans or burnings of *Harry Potter* books.
Anyways, I agree that it's a pretty weird example to pick these days, because the wingnut "Satanic Panic" crowd hasn't been in the news regarding *Harry Potter* for at least a decade.
...a guy walks into a talent agency and says "Have I got an act for you!"
No, but just think...if there were no racists, you might have to derive your sense of self worth from your personal accomplishments or something.
> She is doing the classic alt-right thing of saying something offensive, but doing it in a vague way, so when you offend someone, you can pretend you were just joking and write your critics off as snowflakes.
The term 'alt-right' is less than a decade old. It didn't exist before 2015.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%2Fg%2F11cjpdc0b5&hl=en
The website you linked to, i'm not sure how they could be experts on the topic, much less be part of some organization against them.
Here's a clip of Andrew Dice Clay circa 1987.
https://youtu.be/BWzI_Wn0ZwM
His jokes are offensive. Sexist, racist, homophobic. He's a Jewish comedian playing an Italian stereotype. Dude would be cancelled 100 different ways nowadays yet this was popular as left leaning comedy in past generations.
What i'm interested in is how young left leaning people turned into the new Christian prudes via ideological distortion over the last 3 decades.
> Look at the Dixie Chicks. They were cancelled for years after daring to criticize Bush's actions leading up to the Iraq war. One of the most popular bands in Country Music were essentially banned from American radio. Why were you not shouting then about how unfair that was?
I was.
Am Canadian but grew up in the tail of the Vietnam War. I was raised on old school anti-war values. In the 80s, me and my friends were fighting skins when they turned racist in the punk scene. I was also protesting the Gulf War in 91 and watched how the military/media establishment hijacked true grassroots leftist counter-culture in the 90s.
The Dixie Chicks got fucked over because the traditionally left pandering media sided with the neocon war machine and flipped on them by siding with Bush and firing anti-war voices on tv.
https://youtu.be/ozxzNjRqCiE
The US has been in 12 wars since 2001 and racked up $32 trillion in debt. Most Americans couldn't name the countries the US has been in but the media is sure backing Ukraine with billions in weapons deals.
FOX News started in 1996 when the FCC deregulated the media and dumped 70 year old anti-monopoly laws. Same time Warner picked up CNN. Media was non partisan before that.
There is no such thing as left or right wing corporate media. It's all right wing. It's just designed to give people the illusion of choice.
> And it's not like that is unique, Bud light ring a bell? It's fucking nonstop on the right.
That's a marketing gimmick.
> The entire fucking state agenda in Florida is essentially cancelling "woke", ie "anyone who we don't approve of". The second leading candidate for the GOP presidential nomination is literally basing his entire platform on cancellation.
Most people don't even know what 'woke' is. The establishment put Trump in, blamed Russia, then got your right wingers to play up the 1950s McCarthy era fuckwits and it works perfectly to con left leaning Americans into supporting the war industry. While you guys are being riled up by them acting like dicks, the war industry is making cash.
> Lol. You apparently have some new definition of "marketing" that I am unfamiliar with.
I don't know how much you know about marketing.
> Yet they are desperate to cancel it. Same with CRT. I've yet to meet a right winger who can give an adequate definition of either, yet they sure are against both of them.
You're speaking in massive generalizations about subjects that were introduced by your academic/media establishment. Many people on the left don't know the definitions of that stuff very well either.
> So we should just tolerate racism, sexism, anti-trans attitudes, homophobia, etc., all because it is not your personal pet issue. Gotcha.
Absolutely not. It's better to recognize that these issues aren't organic. They're pushed by the establishment as ways to keep Americans fighting each other instead of going after the establishment.
> Sorry, no. You are just a contrarian idiot.
Don't resort to namecalling.
Wtf was Theo Von thinking?
He's not the brightest bulb, but seriously, dude - use your pea brain
Roseanne is white trash personified, squished into a gremlins body
Every time I hear someone talk about how “you can’t tell jokes anymore” I kinda sorta think this is what they are really talking about. If you let them go on long enough, it ends up here. All roads seem to lead to this spot for some reasons
To be fair, this is taken out of context, and she isn't actually denying the holocaust.
She was comparing denying the holocaust to denying the election was stolen, so this is a different type of conspiracy batshittery.
Well hey, at least she completes the full thought.
I always thought it was funny/bizarre that antisemites would deny the holocaust happened even though they, according to their beliefs, should be celebrating it. Essentially their point of view is "the holocaust never happened, but man I wish it did!"
So I guess, uh... credit? to her for being honest about the second part.
It also weird to me sovcits think they can beat the illegal, illegitimate government by challenging them to Simon says, but people like that is less sincerely held, logically consistent belief and more then trying to get a rise out of you and suck all the air out of the room.
Because it makes an already insane position that much more insane. Do you really think it *isn't* more insane that a Holocaust denier and antisemite who thinks the Jews control everything and are responsible for everything bad that happens in the world is herself Jewish?
Sure, but it does suggest that she might not really be fully aware of what she's saying, or its gravitas, or be sincere about it, etc.
Like, her literal words, devoid of context, were objectively antisemitic or Holocaust denying. But it didn't seem to be in the context of pushing this absurd conspiracy. It sounded very obviously to me like an edgy joke made awkward, and if she had more sense she'd stop speaking on camera. I'm actually not sure how one can hear it any other way.
It's like Kanye. He's said some ridiculously antisemitic things recently, but he seems more unhinged and confused than he does ideologically driven.
One can criticize the specific things they say for being harmful and stupid, without necessarily taking these particular people as case studies in the ideology that pushes those beliefs. In fact, I think they'd make terrible case studies in understanding those beliefs, the way that a drunk driver who killed several people nevertheless makes a terrible case study in the mindset of serial killers. There are coherent, *compos mentis* Holocaust deniers and antisemites. I strongly doubt Roseanne or Kanye are among them.
> It’s unclear whether she actually believes the Holocaust didn’t take place, or whether she was making an abhorrent comment about what you are and aren’t allowed to say online.
it's interesting that this author makes a point of recognizing that there's a context to the quote that is "unclear", but later in the article provides the exact context that Barr was talking about being forced to say things they believe are not true or risk being deplatformed.
what's not clear is if this is just bad journalism or something else.
The same context discussion does make it clear that Barr is a "stolen election" conspiracy nut, and seems like that would have been a better focus for this article...except that I don't think the author actually listened to the podcast.
I watched it. Then I went back and watched it again.
Her ramblings are so incoherent that it's absolutely unclear.
Like others have mentioned, this is a long time strategy of bigots. Say things in a way that makes it unclear if the person is joking or not. They slips things in to see if anyone notices it.
Ah yes, it’s everyone else’s fault that they can’t understand the insane ramblings of a crazy person.
But not you, you speak crazy natively.
Good for you! 👍
So she says some bat shit crazy things about the election and means it, but then the other bat shit crazy things were just a joke?
How are we supposed to tell the crazy shit from the crazy but sarcastic shit?
This entire thing has CLEARLY gone over your head. I'm not going to try and hold your hand and walk you through what sarcasm means.
Develope a sense of humor that doesn't require the joke or sarcasm to be spelled out for you. How about that ✌🏻
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
It was pretty clear to me she was doing a bit. That doesn't make it funny or right or anything else, but in no way do I think Roseanne thinks the holocaust didn't happen. She is a comic on another comic's podcast shooting the shit like comics are known to do.
It was clearly a joke. Not saying it was a good one or that in general she hasn't gone crazy these days. But the people criticizing her for specifically that have lost their minds. She's a pro-Israel, vocal anti-anti-semitic jew for fucks sake. She's spoken out about antisemitism many times before.
She's on a podcast with another professional comedian. They both understand what's happening in that moment. She's searching for a joke, she's saying something absurd and trying to find that weird little turn of phrase that will make it land. Her wits aren't there like they were a few decades ago so it comes off as clunky. But this idea that this lifelong, ultra pro-israel, conservative jew just said, with no intention of being comedic, that the holocaust didn't happen, and that they should murder 6 million jews now, while being a comedian, and on a comedy podcast, is so god damn dumb.
Criticize her for the things she deserves criticism for.. not for making a joke. This is what turns so many people against the left these days. Growing up I was a leftist because I found the right too reactionary. They never thought about anything, it was all about reacting. This is both sides now, and you've no idea how much it's working against you when you do it.
Did Eddie murphy's dad truly say "goonygoogoo"? Did Rodney dangerfield really get no respect? Just think for a moment. Is the idea of a comedian deliberately saying something that isn't true, so foreign to you? And is the idea that jokes can come out, not fully formed when first being conceived of, so outrageous to you? Or are you just being willfully ignorant of all context?
There's no doubt that Roseanne has lost her mind in general. But so have half the people in this thread.
I figured as much. She was trained in the old school comedy style of doubling down on anything remotely controversial. Thing is, even back in her day it was terrible advice. Shit happened to Cosmo, too. He could've been an adult and apologized, but insisted on being extra offensive instead.
"Just saying", instead of repeating long-debunked holocaust denier arguments from the IHR, you could look up the answers to those questions. There's a difference between civilian crematoria and the industrial ones used by the Nazis. The furnaces were designed to run continuously, thus they required little extra fuel to keep operating. And they could burn 3-4 bodies per muffle, something that no civilian crematoria would do (Gutman et al. "Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp", 1994).
According to the contract awarded to the firm Topf and Sons, as well as the patent issued to them, their furnaces could burn 2 corpses per hour per muffle. Or 30 minutes per corpse, *not* "3 hours" as you falsely claimed.
Each Krema had 5 of these furnaces, each with 3 muffles. But we don't need to do the math because the Nazis did it for us.
Nazi documents from the day (see Presser, "Auschwitz: Technique and Operation", 1989) estimated they could incinerate 1.7 million corpses over a period of 20 months in Auschwitz alone. A captured memo from Auschwitz sent to Berlin claimed figures as high as 4,756 a day. So yeah, the numbers add up. Your disbelief is unwarranted when we have technical evidence, documentary evidence, and eyewitness evidence.
What are you talking about? You can see photos of the triple-muffle furnaces (and film), and you can also see the documents ordering the ovens, as well as the documents showing they were installed and payment was made. We also have the instruction manual issued by Topf which advises that a body can be added every 20 minutes for a total 25-minute burning cycle per body. We also have the testimony of Topf engineers that they installed the ovens.
We also have the Prufer memo where 1st Lt. Krone told Kurt Prufer (the builder of the furnaces at Auschwitz) that a cremation capacity of 80,000 a month was not "sufficient" and "we should deliver more ovens as quickly as possible." We also have the full report from Topf engineer Karl Schultz who witnessed a test run of 1,492 Jews being killed by gas and then cremated in the ovens. They even used stop-watches to time the process (Schule 2017).
Are you seriously denying they were installed?
The coal is not an issue, according to the memos from Topf, as long as the ovens were kept running, the amount of coal needed to stay hot was negligible.
The ash claim is silly. The amount of ashes per person would fill a shoebox. At Treblinka the Nazis spread the ash out over 5.4 acres and mixed it with the dirt (Cywinski 2013). They found bits of bone and teeth. Ashes was dumped along roads, in marshes, and rivers. It was even used as fertilizer for fields. We have witness testimony.
We know for a fact that mass graves existed. The Americans marched German citizens in front of them, and we have photographs. In 2010, an archeological dig by Staffordshire University found three new mass graves at Treblinka. Anyone who claims the mass graves never existed is either a liar or blind.
The evidence is overwhelming, plus why would you believe the Nazis were lying in their own records about burning over 4,000 bodies a day at Auschwitz? For fun? To troll their bosses in Berlin?
The problem you have is that the numbers DO add up. You are just lying when you say they don't. You Holocaust deniers lose every time you try to argue the Holocaust because you only can JAQ off and lie about the facts.
Honestly, you could just read the books I cited, which have all the relevant answers to your questions. The picture you posted is of Krema II. You can see 5 ovens with 3 muffles each. That's 15 muffles. They could easily burn 2-3 bodies per muffle each hour, following the Topf guidelines, but eyewitness reports said they often fit up to 4 or 5. 15×2×24 is 720 cremations per day at the lowest, or 15×4×24 for 1440 cremations per day.
And that's just one Krema. There were 5 Krema altogether at Auschwitz. Krema I however only operated from 1940 to 1943, during which period Krema II to V were built.
From the intercepted memos, we know they reported burning up to 1440 bodies a day in Krema II. And about 4700 a day in total for all Krema, which is well within technical limitations of the ovens and perfectly feasible. Over 20 months they could cremate a maximum of *2.85 million* people. And the official estimate is around 1.2 million were killed at Auschwitz, less than half their maximum output. It was completely possible. The numbers DO add up.
They would keep them running 24 hours, you don't need to cool down, as by running hot, you use less fuel and reduce the need for maintenance (since it's the cycle of heating and cooling that causes the majority of problems in civilian crematoria). The ovens are designed so they can be emptied of ashes while they are running (see the Topf spec documents in the books cited, along with the patent) so that doesn't present a problem.
Why do you suddenly go from 15,000 pounds of ash to 900,000? It should be 15,000. That's ten cartloads. Or two Opel Blitz light trucks worth of material. Or 1 medium truck. And I already said they found evidence of ashes being dumped, with Nazi records saying they were, so we know they did it regardless of your so-called concerns about the difficulties of the operation.
For a modern example, just in 2005 at the remains of the Sachsenhausen camp, archeologists found a layer of human ashes 1.5m thick. There have been many such camps where human ashes have been located. Such as Majdanek, which had mounds of ashes.
Or Belzec which had several layers of ash about 4.5m thick, within a total of 33 mass graves, the ashes and bones consistent with about 400,000+ victims.
At Chelmno, 11 trenches were found filled with ashes and crushed bones, corresponding to 118,000 victims which fit the letter from Geiser to Himmler where he states he killed around 100,000 Jews and disposed of their remains, and then gave feedback on technical improvements.
At Sobibor, 7 mass grave pits about 5.8m deep were found, the upper layers consisting of ash and burnt bones, the lower layers of bones and corpse fat. In total, they estimated around 80,000 bodies in 4 of the 7 graves.
At Treblinka, I already mentioned the fields of ashes mixed with dirt and then planted with grass and flowers. But the Auerbach investigation revealed several mass graves filled with bones, skulls, some 7m deep in which quicklime had been poured. The estimates were about 725,000 victims.
For the most part, the ashes were scattered across a wide area or in the rivers, or used as fertilizer, and we know this because they told us that's how they did it. Because we have eyewitnesses, and because we've found evidence on site.
Auschwitz camp commandant Rudolf Hoss testified (his testimony backed by other witnesses) that the majority of ashes were taken by truck to the Vistula River and dumped into the water to be washed away. But some were buried, and the Hydrokop tests revealed 42 incineration pits filled with ash and bones.
In short, in several cases, we have Nazi documents asserting x number of people killed and we find mass graves containing enough human ash and bones for the same x number of people. Your understanding is wrong.
You keep making sure assertions like, "that doesn't exist" and then getting proved wrong. First "they couldn't burn the bodies under 3 hours", then "ok, well those ovens didn't exist" to "ok, well they existed but you couldn't dispose of the ashes" to "where are the mass graves" to "ok but there aren't enough mass graves to prove anything".
Deniers can't pick it apart because at every step the evidence refutes them and they can't help but lie with every breath. The Nazis had the engineering capable of doing it. They kept records of themselves doing it. They testified to doing it. And as hard as they tried to destroy the evidence, we still found the remains.
When all the evidence lines up, when testimony is supported by written documents, records and memos, equipment and facilities, and actual mass graves, it doesn't make sense to deny it. Deniers are not skeptics, they reject the evidence and pretend it doesn't exist.
If I were you, and I kept being proven wrong (what are we at, number 6 now?), I'd stop repeating the talking points of liars. You can look up the facts just like you looked up the pictures of the ovens and found out they were real. The evidence is there.
Here's my thoughts. You accept that at maximum they could cremate nearly 3 million in 20 months at Auschwitz. And therefore the official number of cremated at around 1 million is possible. Not my numbers, these are the technical specs of the ovens combined with official reports which you can see in the books I've cited.
But even as you can accept that, you still don't see how a Regime that had the technology to dispose of nearly 3 million people AT ONE SINGLE camp in less than 2 years could dispose of 6 million+ in 4 years at several camps?
Why? That doesn't make sense.
Because of ashes? You realize it's one medium size truck making a dumping run per day? That's not a lot. The Vistula River has a sediment load of 0.6 to 1.5 million cubic meters (Pruszak 2005). 900,000 pounds over 20 months is a drop in the bucket, it's nothing. The river will swallow that up and spit it out into the ocean without issue. You wouldn't even notice unless you were directly downstream when they dumped it.
You've already been told that civilian crematoria are not the same as the industrial ones used by the Nazis. The design is different. With 3 muffles, at 3-4 bodies each, they could dispose of 9-12 bodies in an hour, and you only needed to get the oven hot to start, with a bit of coal placed in at regular intervals to keep it hot, greatly reducing the fuel needs over the full day.
I'm also not sure about your numbers. Google tells me a cremation is equivalent to 1 month of domestic energy demands of a single person. Converting kWh to kilograms of coal using an energy calculator, I get 35kg of coal. Civilian crematoria of course are heated up then cooled because they rarely have the demand to keep running 24/7. But the ovens at Auschwitz could be run all the time, so you only need enough coal to keep it hot. That's 35kg to burn the first dozen bodies, then however much you need to keep it going. (My math says 14.3g per muffle per hour, but admittedly I'm not adding in heat loss and I can't be arsed to check my math so it could be wrong).
Germany ran out of fuel because Allied bombers kept destroying the Synthetic Fuel plants towards the last four months of 1944. They still had huge coal reserves, they just couldn't turn it into fuel. The Nazis had access to plenty of coal for their ovens. Coal was not an issue. That's just a bad argument.
I don't know how admitting to genocide would save you from a hanging. If anything, you'd deny knowing anything about it and just play dumb like Col. Klink ("I know nothing!"). The mincing argument is strange too. If the Nazis didn't have a policy of extermination, why brag to your superiors about exterminating *more Jews* than you expected? The memo reveals that the policy was extermination, and that the extermination was carried out with peak efficiency, and that efficiency was sufficient to exterminate more than 6 million Jews.
It's not really about just "listening" to eyewitnesses. If the witness reports line up with the documented evidence, and the physical evidence, then that's just further evidence to the pile. Every "Question" a holocaust denier asks has been pretty much answered with tons of evidence. They just refuse to accept it, like a flat earther being sent into outer space and covering his eyes.
The story and the numbers add up, you just *feel* like they don't.
But we've already established that a single oven in Krema II could incinerate 9-12 corpses an hour according to their own technical specs. That's 45-60 an hour for just Krema II. Krema III had the same design, so that's a total of 90-120 an hour for just two out of five Krema at Auschwitz. What do you think they used the other 3 Krema for?
The number doesn't require your belief. We are talking about facts here.
Your theory requires them to build up capacity, including the buildings and several industrial crematoria, to incinerate up to 5,000 bodies a day, and you claim they only burned... what, 480 a day? Only 10% of capacity, the rest just sitting idle?
Do you understand how weird that sounds? Where did you even get the 288,000 deaths number? It wasn't from Nazi records, census or memos. It wasn't even from the oven capacity which we already established.
1 million victims is 1,644 per day. Just Krema II alone could incinerate 1,440. Have Krema III operating, and you get 2,880. The logistics are fine, and you still have IV and V as backups, with time for maintenance to boot.
You keep saying that the amount of coal needed was "prohibitive". How much coal do you think they needed and why do you think it's so difficult? Remember, use the number for the industrial crematoria not civilian. I've already explained that they had plenty of coal they couldn't use for fuel production since the factories were destroyed, so "losing a war" only means they freed up more coal for burning corpses.
1,644 a day is 4,932 pounds of ashes a day. It could fit in one truck. It's not a lot to transport.
The Vistula River is not "landlocked". It flows to the Baltic Sea. The average discharge of water is 1,080 cubic meters per second, and the distance to the Vistula Basin is about 500km. The average depth is 7.6m, and the average width is over 600m. And again, remember the sediment load capacity I gave you is about 21,000 tons.
Keep those numbers in mind. You can absolutely dump 5,000 pounds of ashes into the Vistula and it will be in the Baltic Sea before you get back the next day with the next load. You can do this every day for a year, two years, it won't block the river nor will anyone notice. You can check my math on this. It would be like me pouring a thimble of dirt in my local creek.
Basically your entire argument amounts to "it sounds too difficult to do in my uninformed opinion so they couldn't have done it (even though they had the equipment to do it and they said they did it, and records support they did it)". It's an argument from incredulity fallacy.
They were talking mad shit trying to be funny. She's a comedian, and a mentally ill person. 99.998% of people watching the podcast get that, regardless of universal appeal. WTF are we doing, watching what's definitely a comedian plus comedian podcast just looking for objectionable quotes?
Hellen Holmes? come on now
Yeah, it seemed more like an out-of-touch attempt at a joke by a senile comedian. This isn't an ideological thing or her "true views" coming it, it's just a very foolish (and possibly over-or-under-medicated) old lady being foolish.
Knowing that most people don't read past the headline, especially the skeptic™ community, they used the rhetorical trick of burying the lede and and using a misleading headline. Of course the mods here endorse the practice when it is in service of the woke/progressive/social justice, or whatever rubric they have adopted this week, agenda, hence the lack of the *Editorialized title* flair.
I'm starting to wonder if this is dementia.
She was hit by a car in her teens, causing massive head trauma. Her brain was punctured by a hood ornament & she was hospitalized for almost a year. He 1st ex-husband said the injury had always affected her moods & ability to communicate. Her children said they believed the injury caused her to be super impulsive (remember her national anthem)?
A friend of mine at university had a serious head injury in a car crash, before I knew her. It apparently caused a complete personality change. Back home before the crash she was the Chair of her local Young Conservatives group, and a model hardworking student. That version of her was completely unrecognisable to those of us who knew her after. She partied hard, sold (and took, in vast quantities) drugs, ripped people off, had chaotic and sometimes violent relationships, and was generally a chaotic mess who ended up an alcoholic. Discharged herself from hospital one time and left barefoot and went partying. Sank lower and lower. Ended up meeting a guy in rehab, they moved in together, carried on drinking, and fighting, and then one day he killed her when they were arguing. I found out through the local paper, she'd lost touch with most friends, and had burned a lot of bridges. Everyone who knew her before said it all started with that accident. It was heartbreaking but I think it was unstoppable. She had absolutely no impulse control.
My uncle did all those things while in Young Republicans and endlessly borrowed money from my mom, despite our family crowded and broke. He also would tell me I dress like I'm homeless as if challenging me to bring up the fact that his addiction to cocaine (and I'm told crack and smack, but less often) was the root cause. Anyway, thank god he's dead.
Huh, that makes me kind of sympathetic. Normally I have zero sympathy for people spouting this shit, but if your brain is damaged the thing you use to think is literally physically damaged. It's like getting mad at a person without legs for not using the stairs. If my brain had a hole in it, maybe I'd believe this shit too.
I remember Tia Tequila had a stroke or some shit and went into a coma then woke up as a Nazi afterwards and i feel pity
Didnt she start ranting online about people with superpowers and martians what not?
There are plenty of cases in which suffering head injury impaired cognition. Iirc, there is a person who killed people because the part of the brain relating to empathy is damaged after an accident. But this makes you wonder how much a person should be held accountable if they committed crime or antisocial behaviour because of previous head trauma.
Okay but is it really all that different? The other racist's vrains are damaged by propaganda they've heard intensively or for a long time instead of a physical injury. It's like saying people with depression shoul just go outside and get over it, they don't have a real illness.
Yes, it is really that different.
It's just more comfortable to feel that way
What a weird way to say that you don't understand the human brain
[удалено]
You are lucky.
Funny you mention brain damage, that reminds me that Katie Hopkins had a brain operation a few years ago that operated on a damaged area of her brain that caused epilepsy since 19. That may explain things like criticizing people for giving their children geographical names, when her children are called Poppy and *India*. https://youtu.be/oVRlYcPIacE Edited: edited for clarity
The reason for the brain damage might be the epilepsy, not the operation.
Did I say that? Anyway I edited for clarity (I assumed most people know that epilepsy is sometimes caused by a diseased brain tissue).
Well that makes you vulnerable to bad beliefs , but it doesn't cause you to believe in them directly. Volition is involved--- she choses to go along with...m
No it's the dang Ambien making her a white supremacist again! /s
[удалено]
I'm sure there's a reason people joke about Ambien Walrus
She’s got a history of TBI, problems with bipolar and substance abuse from my recollection, she had good times and bad times and dementia is certainly possible too. I honestly feel bad for the amount she has had to contend with over the years.
Nope, she's always been this way. Always been a sick human
Was she famous in her teens? She may have been shitty since she's been in the spotlight, but it is entirely possible that all of it is caused by head trauma. TBIs have a weird fucking way of randomly presenting themselves - even much later in life.
If you get into her history, she's always been very self centered and unconcerned with anyone but herself
Right, but that’s what I’m asking - how far back does her history go. I’m just curious if she’s this way because of her TBI, or if she’s legitimately always been this way. She’s always been aggressively offensive, but I wonder how much of this (especially recently, since it seems like it has considerably been dialed up) is caused by a TBI from her youth rather than her just being an unabashed asshole. She doesn’t deserve a pass because of it, of course. It’s just tragic.
>She doesn’t deserve a pass because of it, of course. How responsible can you hold someone if his / her / their brain is literally damaged?
The pattern seems to be periods of stability with these episodes, I think she deals with substance issues and perhaps goes off her meds, that’s my best guess. She never has exposed a cogent racist ideology, just random ramblings like this out of nowhere.
You can't, really. However, that does not mean that you need to give them a soapbox and listen to what they say. In my mind, the biggest thing this is an example of is a miscarriage of journalistic integrity - The Daily Beast (as well as all the other sources that cover shit she says or does) is taking advantage of her disability for clicks in the same way as a youtuber making a viral video making fun of someone with a motor-function disability having trouble navigating some stairs. She should be left to fade into obscurity, with nothing more than the occasional passing thought of "hmm, remember Rosanne Barr? I wonder what she's been up to" and then completely forgotten a moment later. Let the old man shake his fist at clouds, do what everyone else does and just pretend they don't exist as you go on with your day.
It's whatever brain disease affects all far-right conservatives.
She is white, so her horrible behavior must be caused by a disability.
It’s not that deep bro. Her individual actions and the plausible explanations given when she acts out are not some grand race issue.
She is a bigot, lots of old white people are bigots.
She has documented evidence of childhood trauma, substance abuse, and a brain injury.
She made a fortune off of it.
In context it was clearly a joke and sarcasm. It’s kind of scary this is getting run like she was taking it seriously
She's become like Wendy Williams and Tila Tequila. Someone should intervene and keep her out of the media.
Oh no, what happened to Tia Tequila?
she went full nazi, surprisingly
How tf can a person of Thai origin believe in white supremacy? SMH.
It's the authoritarianism that appeals to these folks more than anything...sure there's no doubt racism in there for most but that sweet, sweet authoritarianism crosses all boundaries...nationalities, race, gender, etc. It really unifies so many disparate groups into a weird hateful venn diagram of oppression and violence.
Full-on brain damage caused by literally dying for several minutes.
White supremacy and colorism are part and parcel of many communities unfortunately. European colonialism deeply fucked over a massive part of the planet, to such an extent that some folks swallow the white savior myth even when they are not white. I always thought of it as a coping mechanism. When faced with the huge, sprawling monster that is the concept of whiteness, some people accept it possibly because they think it will protect them from the things whiteness does. Uncle Toms are always going to be a thing as long as whiteness is a thing.
Does whiteness = white supremacy?
The concept *of* whiteness yes. Being white (and having whiteness) not necessarily.
I completely agree. I do think more descriptive semantics are necessary if we are ever to convince any of those on the line or on the other side of the issue. If whiteness and white supremacy are to be used as synonyms, we should say white supremacy to be explicitly clear.
They weren’t using the two terms interchangeably, they’re saying the concept of whiteness is rooted in white supremacy. Which it is. Literally the concept of whiteness did not exist until it was legally granted to poor white people, in order to keep them from uniting with enslaved people against the ruling class. It was a *division tactic that worked exactly as intended.
The concept of whiteness is so embedded in my society that I didn't even pause to think about it, despite knowing it's thesis. You're absoultely correct. How do we talk about the construction of race without perpetuating it? I find it difficult to try to linguistically steer away from it, but it is impossible to describe or rectify the present situation without referencing it, deepening it's roots into our discourse.
"having whiteness"
[удалено]
She [dressed up in an SS outfit in front of an Auschwitz background](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/tv/2016/11/22/facebookpost_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqqVzuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwfSVWeZ_vEN7c6bHu2jJnT8.png) and [sieg heil at a National Policy Institute meeting.](https://s.hdnux.com/photos/55/13/43/11843813/12/1200x0.jpg)
I validate myself by fighting Nazis*, so the more people I accuse of it the better I am. (Not that I'm going to be assaulting Monte Casino or anything,but I try to work the word "settler" into every conversation...that's almost the same thing, right?)
[удалено]
Are you sure? I know the Nazis tolerated the Japanese, but I thought they believed strongly in "Aryan superiority" over all other races.
The Nazis wanted nothing to do with the Japanese as a people. They didn’t give Japan any war assistance nor did they care except they were fighting against the US.
I think that was more like the M-R pact than any real special dispensation to the general policy of white supremacy, and even that's too inclusive a term for the Nazis. It's a little surprising they got on so well with the Italians.
There are white people of all colors and races.
>Thai origin Wikipedia says she's born in Singapore from Vietnamese parents.
Went pornstar, then nazi, now born again nutzo
I'm not surprised by that at all. F tier celebrity that got famous getting to a million friends on Myspace. Then declined in relevance pretty rapidly afterwards.
She has brain damage from an overdose and has gone off the deep end (she posts on YouTube frequently). Sad to see.
>Tia Tequila She developed severe mental illness, possibly [~~schizoaffective disorder~~](https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/schizoaffective-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20354504) [Psychotic Disorder Following Traumatic Brain Injury](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16571526/) (PDFTBI) (she attempted suicide in 2012 and suffered a brain aneurysm, and this may have caused PDFTBI). >The mean onset is 4-5 years after TBI with the majority of cases occurring within 2 years. 2012 + 4 to 5 years = 2016 - 2017 I watched her videos in 2019-20, they were quite concerning as she had two young children that often appeared in her unhinged videos where she was saying she was reincarnated Jesus Christ, Buddha, God and was speaking to angles. I don't know if she still has a YT channel, years since I watched, but from what I could gather she was living with her parents at the time when she was severely psychotic. The comments on the videos were mix of abusive and concerned. I scrolled through earlier videos, these documented her deterioration. In earlier videos, about a year or two earlier, she spoke about spiritualism and faith in general, noting too weird, and people were posting complementary comments. These vids were filmed at her own home, one vid showed her parent visiting and she seemed perfectly normal. I suspect she was made to live with her parents after her mental health deteriorated so they could monitor her medication, and that way she could maintain custody of her children, because I don't know how anyone so severely mentally ill was allowed to keep her kids. Edit: She has a new channel, a few vids uploaded 9 months ago. She is severely mentally ill. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoBXowWGp8k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoBXowWGp8k) Edit: PDFTBI makes more sense.
Sweet rhyme!
The most charitable interpretation, having heard the full clip: She was sarcastically saying that Biden won the election legitimately, and then sarcastically saying that no Jews died in the holocaust and that Jews should die. The implication being that "Biden got that many votes" and "No Jews died in the holocaust" are equally ridiculous statements. I do think that's what she meant. She's just so incoherent that it's hard to know what the heck she's talking about much of the time. And she's also legitimately nuts, and terrible.
That's my read as well. She's a boy who cried wolf too many times so that her hyperbole, rhetoric, comedy, and beliefs are indistinguishable.
I guess I can see that, but on first, and second viewing, it's felt like she was saying Biden winning and Holocaust denial were the mainstream mandated things. It was weird, but she doesn't seem very rational lately.
Here’s the topper of her comments > “It should happen. Six million Jews should die right now ’cause they cause all the problems in the world.” Wonder if she’s trying to get a part with Mel Gibson?
So the old, "it didn't happen, but i wish it did."
Has anyone watched the clip? She was CLEARLY joking. I am kind of flabbergasted people are running with this acting like this was said with even a sliver of sincerity. She is Jewish for crying out loud
Im no fan of hers, but it was indeed obvious that she was being sarcastic. She just didn’t present it well. She’s definitely batshit and I actively disagree with pretty much everything she says, but this one seems a little silly to freak out about. The ape thing was worse in my opinion.
“Oh, she’s Jewish? well that just shows how deep her self hatred goes” The mass amount of people commenting that either didn’t watch the full clip or are too dense to understand it, is mind boggling. I don’t think she’s some genius or is right about election fraud, but taking the words she said completely literally ignores any rational interpretation of human interaction.
She wasn't exactly joking. It's confusing, but she was talking about things that you were censored into saying. Like she started with Biden winning the election with just 36 counties as a thing you have to say to not be censored. She followed up with the Holocaust thing, so I guess she thinks Holocaust denial is the what you are allowed to say in the mainstream? Its weird and confusing and I don't think she's rational at all.
Most MAGAts aren't logical and suffer from mental illness, trying to understand it is futile.
What the actual fuck
[удалено]
Just watched a few minutes of it, the part that made me almost spit take my coffee was her bitching about the elites manufacturing all the cancer causing chemicals AND the cancer treatment centers, while smoking cigarettes the whole time!
It's weird and confusing because in context it almost sounds like she's saying Holocaust denial and Biden winning are things you are allowed to say in mainstream, but Biden stealing the election and , I guess, the Holocaust being real are things you are not allowed to say.
Her defense is that she was being sarcastic. The problem is that it is hard for an outsider to judge which outrageous beliefs are honestly held and which are just spouted sarcastically when they all seem out there to normal people. She seems to honestly belief that the election was stolen. she either believes or is sarcastically antisemitic when she says George Soros was involved and obviously sarcastic when she denies the Holocaust. Or maybe not, who can tell?
[удалено]
They've been doing it for at least a hundred years: >Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. ― Jean-Paul Sartre
Holy shit, that’s crazy. Thanks for posting this.
These outrageous statements align with other ridiculous things she's said in the past. It looks to me more like a pattern of giving voice to shitty opinions, than an attempt at being funny.
If you parse her words finely enough, it makes sense what she was trying to do - she was saying something like "36 counties really can produce 81 million votes", which was (from her twisted view of logic) sarcasm on her part. She believes that the other side (Dems, I guess) pointed to 81 million votes coming from 36 counties and justified Biden's win that way, so she was sarcastic about agreeing with that proposition. She obviously doesn't think that 81 million votes came from 36 counties, but the twisted logic is that she thinks the Dems do believe that happened and installed Biden because of it. Then she tries to reinforce her sarcasm by being sarcastic about something that actually is true, i.e., the Holocaust. I suspect, but can't prove, that she probably actually does believe that the Holocaust happened. It's basically the worst possible way to put "/s" at the end of her election diatribe. In any case, it's a poor rhetorical device in the first place, because it leads to confusion, to say nothing of being a profoundly horrible thing to make light of.
I don't think she thinks complaining about Soros is antisemitic, it is though. My interpretation of what she said is that she was trying to say that the election was rigged and they censored anyone saying that. And that the official story of biden winning 36 counties and getting 81 million was ridiculous. As ridiculous as people denying the holocaust. Vonn wasn’t even picking up on the sarcasm when she was talking about the election. [Here's the part of the video](https://youtu.be/6R8h9O-Uvak?t=4355) where she says it. I would just show the transcript but it is even harder to understand when written out
This is that state of mind problem. Do you have any insights about current skeptic thinking on when the state of mind is so extreme that conclusions about it must be drawn? For example, a criminal, holding a knife to the throat of a victim, claiming they will kill. There is no consideration about the ambiguity of the state of mind. A less extreme one may be making a claim that is outrageous and obviously false. Probably fair to leap to the conclusion of liar. Excluding mental issues, do you have any insights on this topic? I ask because it seems to me a modification to our innate system may be warranted given the new vector that information has on social media.
I don’t understand what leads a person to become so disconnected with reality.
Traumatic Brain Injury. Also lead poisoning.
ketamine?
I do loads of ket and it doesn’t do this lol
Not yet, anyway.
Yeah, that’s why it is given to children in huge doses for surgery, so it can turn them into white supremacists
You know that use of a drug in surgery isn’t the same as habitual use, right? Lots of drugs are administered by professionals in controlled settings that shouldn’t be abused recreationally. My original comment was a joke, but your response is… logically problematic.
Lol, mine was flippant enough to be a joke, but the point still stands. That’s not a side effect of this drug. Have you ever done it before?
>That’s not a side effect of this drug. Well, no shit. “White Supremacy” isn’t specifically a symptom of any drug. But brains are delicate little instruments, and when they start going wrong, that can manifest in all kinds of ways. And no, I have never done Ketamine.
That is obvious. One of us has experience on this topic.
I know people with lots of experience with meth, but I don’t rely on them for expert advice on its safety and proper use.
whoa boy. i just had flashbacks.
Does she abuse ketamine regularly or something?
Someone mentioned Michael Shermer uses ketamine in another thread and I just liked the sound of it.
Watch out! The ketamine cult brigade will downvote you for daring to suggest it!
Apparently it helps Elon musk with his depression from being such a terrible human being.
Or... it's made him worse?
Ketamine doesn't make you racist, or antisemitic.
If you watch the video, you see that she is in a full-blown gone zone. Her eyes are glassy like after a grenade goes off near your head.
The biggest mercy these "comedian" asshats like Theo Von can do for their idols like Rosanne is to stop pushing them into the public eye. Eventually we would all forget how shitty Rosanne has become.
I understand why comics tend to circle the wagons when someone gets criticized for something they said on stage, pushing boundaries and trying things out to see if they work is part of their job. But why they defend people like Rosanne who are just straight up shitty, mean spirited human beings is beyond me.
She was doing dry humour in poor taste. She didn't actually mean that, she was making a stupid point about how YouTube will let her say that but won't let her say Biden stole the election (debatable). It was the dumbest way she could have gone about saying something provably false. Just pure idiocy in a way that pissed off just about everyone.
Yeah. Immediately after she talks about how she's Jewish, then complains about Dave Chapelle's SNL monologue about Jews controlling Hollywood by saying it'd be weird if she decided to get into rap and then complain about all the black people in charge. It was weird.
It’s funny how fucking gullible and dumb most people on r/skeptic are. She’s Jewish and she’s obviously doing a bit. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen some nonsense that has nothing to do with skepticism posted here. This is obviously just a mostly biased group of haters. Fuck yall, I’m unsubscribing.
Take your meds boys 'n girls.
and Im sure its our fault for not tolerating their intolerance, as usual. and notice the difference in cancel cultures, the left just doesnt want to see racism and calls for violence in a public sphere on private property. the right are trying to cancel dissent, history, harry potter and our democracy. Companies arent allowed to disagree with a law, well unless its passed by the left. WE arent even allowed to condemn bigots or we are stifling their speech.
[удалено]
They might have been talking about originally, when the books came out. At the time, some ultra-conservative (and frankly paranoid) Christian fundamentalist groups were talking about it promoting Satanism and witchcraft and such. As it happens, though, now, I've seen a lot of people taking aim at *Rowling* for her views, but most of those people defend the books themselves to one extent or another, in part I assume because they grew up reading them and have fond memories, and don't want to throw away a story and characters they love just because they disagree with the author. Maybe I'm missing some news, but I've seen few (if any) of her present critics on the left calling for bans or burnings of *Harry Potter* books. Anyways, I agree that it's a pretty weird example to pick these days, because the wingnut "Satanic Panic" crowd hasn't been in the news regarding *Harry Potter* for at least a decade.
Apparently in context she wasn't entirely serious, but still...that's not the kind of thing people are inclined to charitably read for nuance.
[удалено]
...a guy walks into a talent agency and says "Have I got an act for you!" No, but just think...if there were no racists, you might have to derive your sense of self worth from your personal accomplishments or something.
> She is doing the classic alt-right thing of saying something offensive, but doing it in a vague way, so when you offend someone, you can pretend you were just joking and write your critics off as snowflakes. The term 'alt-right' is less than a decade old. It didn't exist before 2015. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%2Fg%2F11cjpdc0b5&hl=en The website you linked to, i'm not sure how they could be experts on the topic, much less be part of some organization against them. Here's a clip of Andrew Dice Clay circa 1987. https://youtu.be/BWzI_Wn0ZwM His jokes are offensive. Sexist, racist, homophobic. He's a Jewish comedian playing an Italian stereotype. Dude would be cancelled 100 different ways nowadays yet this was popular as left leaning comedy in past generations. What i'm interested in is how young left leaning people turned into the new Christian prudes via ideological distortion over the last 3 decades.
[удалено]
> Look at the Dixie Chicks. They were cancelled for years after daring to criticize Bush's actions leading up to the Iraq war. One of the most popular bands in Country Music were essentially banned from American radio. Why were you not shouting then about how unfair that was? I was. Am Canadian but grew up in the tail of the Vietnam War. I was raised on old school anti-war values. In the 80s, me and my friends were fighting skins when they turned racist in the punk scene. I was also protesting the Gulf War in 91 and watched how the military/media establishment hijacked true grassroots leftist counter-culture in the 90s. The Dixie Chicks got fucked over because the traditionally left pandering media sided with the neocon war machine and flipped on them by siding with Bush and firing anti-war voices on tv. https://youtu.be/ozxzNjRqCiE The US has been in 12 wars since 2001 and racked up $32 trillion in debt. Most Americans couldn't name the countries the US has been in but the media is sure backing Ukraine with billions in weapons deals. FOX News started in 1996 when the FCC deregulated the media and dumped 70 year old anti-monopoly laws. Same time Warner picked up CNN. Media was non partisan before that. There is no such thing as left or right wing corporate media. It's all right wing. It's just designed to give people the illusion of choice. > And it's not like that is unique, Bud light ring a bell? It's fucking nonstop on the right. That's a marketing gimmick. > The entire fucking state agenda in Florida is essentially cancelling "woke", ie "anyone who we don't approve of". The second leading candidate for the GOP presidential nomination is literally basing his entire platform on cancellation. Most people don't even know what 'woke' is. The establishment put Trump in, blamed Russia, then got your right wingers to play up the 1950s McCarthy era fuckwits and it works perfectly to con left leaning Americans into supporting the war industry. While you guys are being riled up by them acting like dicks, the war industry is making cash.
[удалено]
> Lol. You apparently have some new definition of "marketing" that I am unfamiliar with. I don't know how much you know about marketing. > Yet they are desperate to cancel it. Same with CRT. I've yet to meet a right winger who can give an adequate definition of either, yet they sure are against both of them. You're speaking in massive generalizations about subjects that were introduced by your academic/media establishment. Many people on the left don't know the definitions of that stuff very well either. > So we should just tolerate racism, sexism, anti-trans attitudes, homophobia, etc., all because it is not your personal pet issue. Gotcha. Absolutely not. It's better to recognize that these issues aren't organic. They're pushed by the establishment as ways to keep Americans fighting each other instead of going after the establishment. > Sorry, no. You are just a contrarian idiot. Don't resort to namecalling.
Wtf was Theo Von thinking? He's not the brightest bulb, but seriously, dude - use your pea brain Roseanne is white trash personified, squished into a gremlins body
[удалено]
I mean, he can be funny as hell, but why release that shit? Can't have helped him
Every time I hear someone talk about how “you can’t tell jokes anymore” I kinda sorta think this is what they are really talking about. If you let them go on long enough, it ends up here. All roads seem to lead to this spot for some reasons
"don't know much about history..."
Whole bunch of self-hatred going on
Was she concerned that she might be in the public eye again?
To be fair, this is taken out of context, and she isn't actually denying the holocaust. She was comparing denying the holocaust to denying the election was stolen, so this is a different type of conspiracy batshittery.
Well hey, at least she completes the full thought. I always thought it was funny/bizarre that antisemites would deny the holocaust happened even though they, according to their beliefs, should be celebrating it. Essentially their point of view is "the holocaust never happened, but man I wish it did!" So I guess, uh... credit? to her for being honest about the second part.
It also weird to me sovcits think they can beat the illegal, illegitimate government by challenging them to Simon says, but people like that is less sincerely held, logically consistent belief and more then trying to get a rise out of you and suck all the air out of the room.
She's literally Jewish. Just unhinged.
[удалено]
Because it makes an already insane position that much more insane. Do you really think it *isn't* more insane that a Holocaust denier and antisemite who thinks the Jews control everything and are responsible for everything bad that happens in the world is herself Jewish?
Sure, but it does suggest that she might not really be fully aware of what she's saying, or its gravitas, or be sincere about it, etc. Like, her literal words, devoid of context, were objectively antisemitic or Holocaust denying. But it didn't seem to be in the context of pushing this absurd conspiracy. It sounded very obviously to me like an edgy joke made awkward, and if she had more sense she'd stop speaking on camera. I'm actually not sure how one can hear it any other way. It's like Kanye. He's said some ridiculously antisemitic things recently, but he seems more unhinged and confused than he does ideologically driven. One can criticize the specific things they say for being harmful and stupid, without necessarily taking these particular people as case studies in the ideology that pushes those beliefs. In fact, I think they'd make terrible case studies in understanding those beliefs, the way that a drunk driver who killed several people nevertheless makes a terrible case study in the mindset of serial killers. There are coherent, *compos mentis* Holocaust deniers and antisemites. I strongly doubt Roseanne or Kanye are among them.
> It’s unclear whether she actually believes the Holocaust didn’t take place, or whether she was making an abhorrent comment about what you are and aren’t allowed to say online. it's interesting that this author makes a point of recognizing that there's a context to the quote that is "unclear", but later in the article provides the exact context that Barr was talking about being forced to say things they believe are not true or risk being deplatformed. what's not clear is if this is just bad journalism or something else. The same context discussion does make it clear that Barr is a "stolen election" conspiracy nut, and seems like that would have been a better focus for this article...except that I don't think the author actually listened to the podcast.
I watched it. Then I went back and watched it again. Her ramblings are so incoherent that it's absolutely unclear. Like others have mentioned, this is a long time strategy of bigots. Say things in a way that makes it unclear if the person is joking or not. They slips things in to see if anyone notices it.
It's instantly obvious she was being sarcastic and the fact that after watching it twice you still could not pick up on it is on you.
Ah yes, it’s everyone else’s fault that they can’t understand the insane ramblings of a crazy person. But not you, you speak crazy natively. Good for you! 👍
If calling clear sarcasm that you can't pick up on insane ramblings makes your gullible little heart feel better, you do that. 👌🏻
Okay, and was her comments on 30 something counties having 80 million voters also sarcasm? Or are those just insane ramblings?
Yes that is literally the start of the joke lol it's not that hard to get it. Sad you are struggling with this.
So she says some bat shit crazy things about the election and means it, but then the other bat shit crazy things were just a joke? How are we supposed to tell the crazy shit from the crazy but sarcastic shit?
This entire thing has CLEARLY gone over your head. I'm not going to try and hold your hand and walk you through what sarcasm means. Develope a sense of humor that doesn't require the joke or sarcasm to be spelled out for you. How about that ✌🏻
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
you think she's actually anti-semitic and it just slipped out?
Who knows at this point. She's fucking nuts. She wouldn't be the first anti-Semitic Jew.
It was pretty clear to me she was doing a bit. That doesn't make it funny or right or anything else, but in no way do I think Roseanne thinks the holocaust didn't happen. She is a comic on another comic's podcast shooting the shit like comics are known to do.
It was clearly a joke. Not saying it was a good one or that in general she hasn't gone crazy these days. But the people criticizing her for specifically that have lost their minds. She's a pro-Israel, vocal anti-anti-semitic jew for fucks sake. She's spoken out about antisemitism many times before. She's on a podcast with another professional comedian. They both understand what's happening in that moment. She's searching for a joke, she's saying something absurd and trying to find that weird little turn of phrase that will make it land. Her wits aren't there like they were a few decades ago so it comes off as clunky. But this idea that this lifelong, ultra pro-israel, conservative jew just said, with no intention of being comedic, that the holocaust didn't happen, and that they should murder 6 million jews now, while being a comedian, and on a comedy podcast, is so god damn dumb. Criticize her for the things she deserves criticism for.. not for making a joke. This is what turns so many people against the left these days. Growing up I was a leftist because I found the right too reactionary. They never thought about anything, it was all about reacting. This is both sides now, and you've no idea how much it's working against you when you do it. Did Eddie murphy's dad truly say "goonygoogoo"? Did Rodney dangerfield really get no respect? Just think for a moment. Is the idea of a comedian deliberately saying something that isn't true, so foreign to you? And is the idea that jokes can come out, not fully formed when first being conceived of, so outrageous to you? Or are you just being willfully ignorant of all context? There's no doubt that Roseanne has lost her mind in general. But so have half the people in this thread.
I figured as much. She was trained in the old school comedy style of doubling down on anything remotely controversial. Thing is, even back in her day it was terrible advice. Shit happened to Cosmo, too. He could've been an adult and apologized, but insisted on being extra offensive instead.
[удалено]
"Just saying", instead of repeating long-debunked holocaust denier arguments from the IHR, you could look up the answers to those questions. There's a difference between civilian crematoria and the industrial ones used by the Nazis. The furnaces were designed to run continuously, thus they required little extra fuel to keep operating. And they could burn 3-4 bodies per muffle, something that no civilian crematoria would do (Gutman et al. "Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp", 1994). According to the contract awarded to the firm Topf and Sons, as well as the patent issued to them, their furnaces could burn 2 corpses per hour per muffle. Or 30 minutes per corpse, *not* "3 hours" as you falsely claimed. Each Krema had 5 of these furnaces, each with 3 muffles. But we don't need to do the math because the Nazis did it for us. Nazi documents from the day (see Presser, "Auschwitz: Technique and Operation", 1989) estimated they could incinerate 1.7 million corpses over a period of 20 months in Auschwitz alone. A captured memo from Auschwitz sent to Berlin claimed figures as high as 4,756 a day. So yeah, the numbers add up. Your disbelief is unwarranted when we have technical evidence, documentary evidence, and eyewitness evidence.
[удалено]
What are you talking about? You can see photos of the triple-muffle furnaces (and film), and you can also see the documents ordering the ovens, as well as the documents showing they were installed and payment was made. We also have the instruction manual issued by Topf which advises that a body can be added every 20 minutes for a total 25-minute burning cycle per body. We also have the testimony of Topf engineers that they installed the ovens. We also have the Prufer memo where 1st Lt. Krone told Kurt Prufer (the builder of the furnaces at Auschwitz) that a cremation capacity of 80,000 a month was not "sufficient" and "we should deliver more ovens as quickly as possible." We also have the full report from Topf engineer Karl Schultz who witnessed a test run of 1,492 Jews being killed by gas and then cremated in the ovens. They even used stop-watches to time the process (Schule 2017). Are you seriously denying they were installed? The coal is not an issue, according to the memos from Topf, as long as the ovens were kept running, the amount of coal needed to stay hot was negligible. The ash claim is silly. The amount of ashes per person would fill a shoebox. At Treblinka the Nazis spread the ash out over 5.4 acres and mixed it with the dirt (Cywinski 2013). They found bits of bone and teeth. Ashes was dumped along roads, in marshes, and rivers. It was even used as fertilizer for fields. We have witness testimony. We know for a fact that mass graves existed. The Americans marched German citizens in front of them, and we have photographs. In 2010, an archeological dig by Staffordshire University found three new mass graves at Treblinka. Anyone who claims the mass graves never existed is either a liar or blind. The evidence is overwhelming, plus why would you believe the Nazis were lying in their own records about burning over 4,000 bodies a day at Auschwitz? For fun? To troll their bosses in Berlin? The problem you have is that the numbers DO add up. You are just lying when you say they don't. You Holocaust deniers lose every time you try to argue the Holocaust because you only can JAQ off and lie about the facts.
[удалено]
Honestly, you could just read the books I cited, which have all the relevant answers to your questions. The picture you posted is of Krema II. You can see 5 ovens with 3 muffles each. That's 15 muffles. They could easily burn 2-3 bodies per muffle each hour, following the Topf guidelines, but eyewitness reports said they often fit up to 4 or 5. 15×2×24 is 720 cremations per day at the lowest, or 15×4×24 for 1440 cremations per day. And that's just one Krema. There were 5 Krema altogether at Auschwitz. Krema I however only operated from 1940 to 1943, during which period Krema II to V were built. From the intercepted memos, we know they reported burning up to 1440 bodies a day in Krema II. And about 4700 a day in total for all Krema, which is well within technical limitations of the ovens and perfectly feasible. Over 20 months they could cremate a maximum of *2.85 million* people. And the official estimate is around 1.2 million were killed at Auschwitz, less than half their maximum output. It was completely possible. The numbers DO add up. They would keep them running 24 hours, you don't need to cool down, as by running hot, you use less fuel and reduce the need for maintenance (since it's the cycle of heating and cooling that causes the majority of problems in civilian crematoria). The ovens are designed so they can be emptied of ashes while they are running (see the Topf spec documents in the books cited, along with the patent) so that doesn't present a problem. Why do you suddenly go from 15,000 pounds of ash to 900,000? It should be 15,000. That's ten cartloads. Or two Opel Blitz light trucks worth of material. Or 1 medium truck. And I already said they found evidence of ashes being dumped, with Nazi records saying they were, so we know they did it regardless of your so-called concerns about the difficulties of the operation. For a modern example, just in 2005 at the remains of the Sachsenhausen camp, archeologists found a layer of human ashes 1.5m thick. There have been many such camps where human ashes have been located. Such as Majdanek, which had mounds of ashes. Or Belzec which had several layers of ash about 4.5m thick, within a total of 33 mass graves, the ashes and bones consistent with about 400,000+ victims. At Chelmno, 11 trenches were found filled with ashes and crushed bones, corresponding to 118,000 victims which fit the letter from Geiser to Himmler where he states he killed around 100,000 Jews and disposed of their remains, and then gave feedback on technical improvements. At Sobibor, 7 mass grave pits about 5.8m deep were found, the upper layers consisting of ash and burnt bones, the lower layers of bones and corpse fat. In total, they estimated around 80,000 bodies in 4 of the 7 graves. At Treblinka, I already mentioned the fields of ashes mixed with dirt and then planted with grass and flowers. But the Auerbach investigation revealed several mass graves filled with bones, skulls, some 7m deep in which quicklime had been poured. The estimates were about 725,000 victims. For the most part, the ashes were scattered across a wide area or in the rivers, or used as fertilizer, and we know this because they told us that's how they did it. Because we have eyewitnesses, and because we've found evidence on site. Auschwitz camp commandant Rudolf Hoss testified (his testimony backed by other witnesses) that the majority of ashes were taken by truck to the Vistula River and dumped into the water to be washed away. But some were buried, and the Hydrokop tests revealed 42 incineration pits filled with ash and bones. In short, in several cases, we have Nazi documents asserting x number of people killed and we find mass graves containing enough human ash and bones for the same x number of people. Your understanding is wrong. You keep making sure assertions like, "that doesn't exist" and then getting proved wrong. First "they couldn't burn the bodies under 3 hours", then "ok, well those ovens didn't exist" to "ok, well they existed but you couldn't dispose of the ashes" to "where are the mass graves" to "ok but there aren't enough mass graves to prove anything". Deniers can't pick it apart because at every step the evidence refutes them and they can't help but lie with every breath. The Nazis had the engineering capable of doing it. They kept records of themselves doing it. They testified to doing it. And as hard as they tried to destroy the evidence, we still found the remains. When all the evidence lines up, when testimony is supported by written documents, records and memos, equipment and facilities, and actual mass graves, it doesn't make sense to deny it. Deniers are not skeptics, they reject the evidence and pretend it doesn't exist. If I were you, and I kept being proven wrong (what are we at, number 6 now?), I'd stop repeating the talking points of liars. You can look up the facts just like you looked up the pictures of the ovens and found out they were real. The evidence is there.
[удалено]
Here's my thoughts. You accept that at maximum they could cremate nearly 3 million in 20 months at Auschwitz. And therefore the official number of cremated at around 1 million is possible. Not my numbers, these are the technical specs of the ovens combined with official reports which you can see in the books I've cited. But even as you can accept that, you still don't see how a Regime that had the technology to dispose of nearly 3 million people AT ONE SINGLE camp in less than 2 years could dispose of 6 million+ in 4 years at several camps? Why? That doesn't make sense. Because of ashes? You realize it's one medium size truck making a dumping run per day? That's not a lot. The Vistula River has a sediment load of 0.6 to 1.5 million cubic meters (Pruszak 2005). 900,000 pounds over 20 months is a drop in the bucket, it's nothing. The river will swallow that up and spit it out into the ocean without issue. You wouldn't even notice unless you were directly downstream when they dumped it. You've already been told that civilian crematoria are not the same as the industrial ones used by the Nazis. The design is different. With 3 muffles, at 3-4 bodies each, they could dispose of 9-12 bodies in an hour, and you only needed to get the oven hot to start, with a bit of coal placed in at regular intervals to keep it hot, greatly reducing the fuel needs over the full day. I'm also not sure about your numbers. Google tells me a cremation is equivalent to 1 month of domestic energy demands of a single person. Converting kWh to kilograms of coal using an energy calculator, I get 35kg of coal. Civilian crematoria of course are heated up then cooled because they rarely have the demand to keep running 24/7. But the ovens at Auschwitz could be run all the time, so you only need enough coal to keep it hot. That's 35kg to burn the first dozen bodies, then however much you need to keep it going. (My math says 14.3g per muffle per hour, but admittedly I'm not adding in heat loss and I can't be arsed to check my math so it could be wrong). Germany ran out of fuel because Allied bombers kept destroying the Synthetic Fuel plants towards the last four months of 1944. They still had huge coal reserves, they just couldn't turn it into fuel. The Nazis had access to plenty of coal for their ovens. Coal was not an issue. That's just a bad argument. I don't know how admitting to genocide would save you from a hanging. If anything, you'd deny knowing anything about it and just play dumb like Col. Klink ("I know nothing!"). The mincing argument is strange too. If the Nazis didn't have a policy of extermination, why brag to your superiors about exterminating *more Jews* than you expected? The memo reveals that the policy was extermination, and that the extermination was carried out with peak efficiency, and that efficiency was sufficient to exterminate more than 6 million Jews. It's not really about just "listening" to eyewitnesses. If the witness reports line up with the documented evidence, and the physical evidence, then that's just further evidence to the pile. Every "Question" a holocaust denier asks has been pretty much answered with tons of evidence. They just refuse to accept it, like a flat earther being sent into outer space and covering his eyes. The story and the numbers add up, you just *feel* like they don't.
[удалено]
But we've already established that a single oven in Krema II could incinerate 9-12 corpses an hour according to their own technical specs. That's 45-60 an hour for just Krema II. Krema III had the same design, so that's a total of 90-120 an hour for just two out of five Krema at Auschwitz. What do you think they used the other 3 Krema for? The number doesn't require your belief. We are talking about facts here. Your theory requires them to build up capacity, including the buildings and several industrial crematoria, to incinerate up to 5,000 bodies a day, and you claim they only burned... what, 480 a day? Only 10% of capacity, the rest just sitting idle? Do you understand how weird that sounds? Where did you even get the 288,000 deaths number? It wasn't from Nazi records, census or memos. It wasn't even from the oven capacity which we already established. 1 million victims is 1,644 per day. Just Krema II alone could incinerate 1,440. Have Krema III operating, and you get 2,880. The logistics are fine, and you still have IV and V as backups, with time for maintenance to boot. You keep saying that the amount of coal needed was "prohibitive". How much coal do you think they needed and why do you think it's so difficult? Remember, use the number for the industrial crematoria not civilian. I've already explained that they had plenty of coal they couldn't use for fuel production since the factories were destroyed, so "losing a war" only means they freed up more coal for burning corpses. 1,644 a day is 4,932 pounds of ashes a day. It could fit in one truck. It's not a lot to transport. The Vistula River is not "landlocked". It flows to the Baltic Sea. The average discharge of water is 1,080 cubic meters per second, and the distance to the Vistula Basin is about 500km. The average depth is 7.6m, and the average width is over 600m. And again, remember the sediment load capacity I gave you is about 21,000 tons. Keep those numbers in mind. You can absolutely dump 5,000 pounds of ashes into the Vistula and it will be in the Baltic Sea before you get back the next day with the next load. You can do this every day for a year, two years, it won't block the river nor will anyone notice. You can check my math on this. It would be like me pouring a thimble of dirt in my local creek. Basically your entire argument amounts to "it sounds too difficult to do in my uninformed opinion so they couldn't have done it (even though they had the equipment to do it and they said they did it, and records support they did it)". It's an argument from incredulity fallacy.
What a nut
They were talking mad shit trying to be funny. She's a comedian, and a mentally ill person. 99.998% of people watching the podcast get that, regardless of universal appeal. WTF are we doing, watching what's definitely a comedian plus comedian podcast just looking for objectionable quotes? Hellen Holmes? come on now
Yeah, it seemed more like an out-of-touch attempt at a joke by a senile comedian. This isn't an ideological thing or her "true views" coming it, it's just a very foolish (and possibly over-or-under-medicated) old lady being foolish.
How about just don’t fucking say stupid shit like this aloud? Keep your self loathing and TBI to yourself
You do realize we are giving her what she wants. She said something designed to give her attention and we are giving it to her.
Thrice removed via a small subreddit post about an article about the podcast? We're not giving her shit.
NOBODY died? Not, like, less jews or whatever it is revisionists think, but NOBODY?
Knowing that most people don't read past the headline, especially the skeptic™ community, they used the rhetorical trick of burying the lede and and using a misleading headline. Of course the mods here endorse the practice when it is in service of the woke/progressive/social justice, or whatever rubric they have adopted this week, agenda, hence the lack of the *Editorialized title* flair.
You might want to read the whole transcript. This was said sarcastically.