3

You are a Holocaust Denier because you think 6 million people died because of the Nazis instead of Y number [Clarity Edit]because Holocaust deniers say 6 million [End Clarity Edit].
What kind of fallacy would this be? to think you are X if you hold something that has been held by X, even though you are Y and against X.

  • I don't understand "instead of my number" in the first sentence. – Frank Hubeny May 10 '18 at 18:34
  • "that has been held by X" I would argue against that Holocaust denier essentially holds that 6 million people died because of the Nazis. – rus9384 May 10 '18 at 21:37
  • Good question. I think the fallacy may relate to the fact that the Holocaust account is promoted as 100% accurate and beyond questioning, an idea any self-respecting historian would sneer at. – David Blomstrom May 10 '18 at 21:54
  • It reminds me of the appeal to authority fallacy, with a lot of intimidation thrown in. If you don't accept the mainstream version, you're branded "anti-Semitic," which is invariably translated "racist." Of course, you're also likely to be branded a "conspiracy theorist," a reminder that there's no such thing as a conspiracy. – David Blomstrom May 10 '18 at 22:11
  • Some general information. – Obie 2.0 May 13 '18 at 0:16
2

It can be constructed as the logical fallacy of Affirming the Consequent:

If P then Q

Q

Therefore P

In this case:

If you are an X, then you hold belief B

You hold belief B

Therefore, you are an X

2

Being a Holocaust denier involves denying that the Nazis carried out any large-scale systematic destruction of the Jews. If someone maintains that the Nazis killed 5 million rather than 6 million, whoever put forward the 5 million figure is hardly denying that the Nazis carried out any large-scale systematic destruction of the Jews.

It's a non-sequitur at the very least. Crudely, the Holocaust was a deliberate mass killing. You are not denying that it was a deliberate mass killing if you reduce the numbers from 6 million to 5 million.

If we regard the Holocaust as involving more than 'mere' numbers and see it (for what it was) as a deliberate attempt to remove the whole Jewish population, it can still have been precisely such a deiberate attempt even if the Nazis actually managed to kill 5 million and not 6 million.

  • I up voted your answer, because you've correctly given the literal definition of "Holocaust denial." However, the term is grossly manipulated by the Jewish community. According to the Holocaust Encyclopedia, "A newer trend is the distortion of the facts of the Holocaust. Common distortions include, for example, assertions that: the figure of six million Jewish deaths is an exaggeration; deaths in the concentration camps were the results of disease or starvation but not policy; and that the diary of Anne Frank is a forgery." – David Blomstrom May 10 '18 at 21:50
  • The term is similar to "anti-Semitism," which Encyclopedia Britannica describes as a "misnomer." Both terms have been so wildly manipulated, they've begun to backfire, inspiring more people to question the mainstream account. – David Blomstrom May 10 '18 at 21:56
  • @GeoffretThomas - Somme help if you want to know where he's coming from: google.com/amp/s/mikereport.wordpress.com/2015/07/22/… – Obie 2.0 May 13 '18 at 0:18
0

Your example is confusing, but I'm interpreting it this way:

I say 6M people died
You say 7M people died
You are therefore classifying me as an HD because there are 1M people that both I and a HD do not believe were killed by the Nazis.

Technically, this is really more a questions of definitions than a fallacy. Is a HD someone who believes 0 people were killed by the Nazis? Or someone who doesn't believe 7M were killed?

More informally, however, it's a hasty generalization about my beliefs --that because I am in very narrow agreement with a HD about one thing, that my general sympathies and beliefs are in any other way congruent with a HD.

0

Cultural sensitivities.

If one takes a position for the sake of opposing a view, and one could suspect it is intentional, then for sensitive folk this could be exaggerated into an accusation of full blown opposition.

So a person does not get a job because of racism, ageism, bias etc. But in these situations it helps to say one is innocent until proven guilty.

On the other hand if you do hold an opinion that defines a group who are hold this very position, you are part of that group because that is how this group is defined.

I thought flat earthers did not exist, until I met one. Or idiologues, or slogan hunters, even though they may deny the label. Racists often say "I am not a racist but ......" followed by a very racist comment. What they mean is the prejudice they hold is valid, while racists hold invalid views.

Until you go through the analysis you may discover the label fits or the other party are being too sensitive. The process of analysis will show the truth or fallacy of the conclusions.

  • Down voted for conflating conspiracy theory with racism. Conspiracy is a fact of life. How politically astute people could not speculate or theorize regarding conspiracy is hard to comprehend. – David Blomstrom May 10 '18 at 22:07
  • Interesting. I am commenting on labels, and how they are made. I am not saying a label is good or bad, but they exist. And there are real conspiracies and it is wise to understand them. What this is regarding is the value of correctly identifying what belongs to what label..... – PeterJens May 10 '18 at 23:49
  • Maybe you could reword it. It sounds like you're saying you thought conspiracy theorists didn't exist, "even though they may deny the label," suggesting there's some sort of stigma attached to conspiracy theory. Mentioning flat earthers further suggests that all conspiracy theorists are kooks. It's like saying all philosophers are kooks just because one thinks the universe was created by a three-legged unicorn. – David Blomstrom May 11 '18 at 4:23
  • @PeterGens - Hmmm, why could David be upset about what you're saying about racists and conspiracy theorists? – Obie 2.0 May 13 '18 at 0:19
  • @Obie - Nice ad hominem, incorporating a blast of hypocrisy to boot - while posting under a pseudonym. Stay classy, Obie Won. – David Blomstrom May 13 '18 at 4:04
0

If you know the context of the Holocaust Deniers this fallacy becomes "Argumentum ad dictionarium".

When Holocaust deniers can't deny the holocaust they can try to reduce the number of victims. As movements or ideas Holocaust Reducers or Holocaust Number Changers don't exist. These Revisionists are all placed under the same name.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial


Note: Ignoring the real meaning, affirming what is false from this argument because of the flaws in the logic is called a fallacy fallacy.

  • I made an edit to try to fix the grammar to clarify your answer. I don't think I distorted your intention. As you are probably aware you may roll this back or continue to edit further. – Frank Hubeny Jun 21 '18 at 20:27
  • Thanks @Frank Hubeny im not native speaker – Rolando Corratge Nieves Jun 22 '18 at 14:25

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.