answering otto Re: pynchon-l-digest V2 #1590

[jporter]

> From: Doug Millison <millison at online-journalist.com>
> Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:59:42 -0700

> 
> Thanks (if that's the right word) for the invitation to demonstrate,
> again, the validity of  my claim that rj/jbor used Holocaust denier
> rhetoric.  

This is a fallacy. Rhetoric is a technique of arguing, not a specific
argument. You use all the tropes used by people who use rhetoric to deny
that the Nazis undertook a plan to eliminate the Jews, so do I, so do most
people who engage in rhetorical argument. Rhetoric is as neutral as language
itself. However, by confusing an argument over terms, with the attempt to
deny history, you would like to imply that jbor is as evil as those who
attempt to deny the planned and systematic murder of innocents by the Nazis.
Your argument is specious.
 
>I also appreciate the opportunity to correct the record on
> two other points after rj and kai have lied repeatedly about what I
> have said. 


>You will see, below, that Ken McVay, a specialist in
> Holocaust history, observed that rj was using a Holocaust denier's
> (Greg Raven's) definition of the Holocaust.

But what you seem to leave out is that Mr. Raven's actual denial goes far
beyond his definition of the Holocaust. In fact, believers in the historical
reality of the Holocaust can disagree about the exact definition of the term
"Holocaust," i.e., Jews v. Jews & all the other victims caught up in the
Nazis' pre-meditated Final Solution, without denying The Holocaust. While
mr. raven defines the Holocaust, he then goes on to deny that it occurred.
His denial is not in his definition, but in denying the historical reality
of that definition. Jbor defends the historical reality of The Holocaust,
and if he would prefer to reserve "Holocaust" for the six million murdered
Jews, and use "atrocities" or "crimes against humanity," etc. for the other
murdered innocents, that, most certainly does not make him a user of
"Holocaust-denier rhetoric"- which again, is a specious term.

> 
> You may recall -- you were active in this discussion at the time --
> that after I contacted McVay to pose questions about whether Dora
> inmates could be considered Holocaust victims (rj argued that they
> weren't), 

Even if jbor disagrees with the expert's definition, that does not qualify
as a denial of the murder of all those that the Nazis murdered. Both jbor
and McVay agree that the same people were murdered by the Nazis, so what we
are arguing about here is language, not history. Jbor most certainly does
not deny history, he just disagrees with your choice of terminology. Huge
difference.


> rj then posted McVay's response:
> 
> Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 18:53:09 +1100
> From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
> Subject: FW: Concerning Holocaust-denial
> 
> - ----------
> From: kmcvay at veritas.nizkor.org (Ken McVay)
> To: jbor <jbor at bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: Concerning Holocaust-denial
> Date: Wed, Oct 4, 2000, 5:56 PM
> 
> You wrote:
> 
>> "when one uses the term "Holocaust," the understood meaning is that of the
>> systematic murder of six million Jews by the Nazi state"
>> 
>> http://www.nizkor.org/features/revision-or-denial/rebuttals-02.html
> 
> That definition is not Nizkor's definition, but Greg Raven's - a
> Holocaust denier.
> 
>> However, this is not the crux of the dispute.
> 
> Good :-) 
 
> So, McVay noted that rj was using a Holocaust denier's definition of
> the Holocaust.  

But McVay does not say that jbor then goes on, as raven does, to deny the
historical reality of that definition. Raven sets out to define what he will
then attempt to deny, jbor is arguing for its reality, the exact opposite.

>Prior to this, I had said that rj was *echoing*
> Holocaust denier rhetoric, but here we see McVay observing that
> rj/jbor was in fact repeating Holocaust denier rhetoric.

No. You're quite mistaken. Jbor was arguing for the historical reality of
the definition, raven was defining what he would attempt to deny- a
diametrically opposed use of the definition. Nor is there any evidence that
jbor has attempted to deny Nazi crimes against humanity, by any name.

 
> Here's the text where I clarified what I was saying about rj and
> Holocaust denier rhetoric:
> Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 08:59:43 -0700
> From: Doug Millison <millison at online-journalist.com>
> Subject: appealing to McVay
> 
> rj's post to Ken McVay is far from a straightforward statement of the
> dispute.  I have not called rj a Holocaust denier -- that remains
> rj's fiction -- but I have compared the evasions, equivocation, and
> prevarication of rj's quibbling about whether or not Dora is a
> Holocaust locale or if the Dora victims in GR might be considered
> Holocaust victims to the *kind of rhetoric* that Holocaust deniers
> use.  

Perhaps you haven't technically called jbor a Holocaust denier, but you have
done your level best to demonstrate guilt by association, or by use of a
common definition, conveniently ignoring the fact that jbor and the denier
use the term to opposite effect. Further you have called jbor an
equivicator, prevaricator, quibbler, evader, etc., etc.

> That's about the time that Derek and jbf asked us to drop it, which I
> promptly did, and stayed quiet (out of rj's discussion threads, at
> least) until New Year's Day when I objected to being called a Nazi,
> after keeping quiet while rj, kai, Morris, Mackin and the rest of
> that posse repeatedly dragged my name through the mud.

Why do you think these people might be singling you out for abuse?
 
> Otto said he had not seen any anti-Semitism in rj's posts; I quote
> from a relevant post:
> "First of all, asshole, my name is Derek, not "maus" (which is, as you no
> doubt know, not only my last name but an insulting hurled toward Jews in
> Germany, you little sweetie you...)."

Secondly, maus is not only "an insulting hurled toward Jews in Germany" but
Derek's last name. ????????????????? So, are we not permitted to use Derek's
last name? Even if jbor knew of the insulting use of "maus" does that mean
he was not allowed to refer to Derek by his own last name?
 
> That appeared in an October 5 post. I can send you the full text if
> you wish, but this should be enough to demonstrate my point of rj's
> spewing anti-Semitic slurs.

I think you'd better post the full text if you are accusing jbor of being an
anti-semite so we can decide for ourselves whether or not you are correct.

> I don't want to go over this Holocaust stuff all over again, but it's
> worth correcting the record.  I said rj echoed Holocaust-denier
> rhetoric, 

As does everyone on the list who uses rhetoric, including you, but you have
not proved that anyone on the list has used Holocaust denier "argument," or
denied the Holocaust.

>and a Holocaust expert confirmed that observation.

McVay answered a question concerning the source of a definition. He did not
confirm your observation, which was specious to begin with, and he certainly
didn't confirm any sympathy in jbor's posts for a denial of the historical
reality of what raven defined.

>I said  rj spewed anti-Semitic slurs, and that's in fact what happened.

You demonstrated that Derek Maus became offended by the use of his last
name.
 
jody