Gareth Owen wrote:
Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> writes:
Expressing and supporting a majoritarian point of
view should still
leave room for alternative points of view, even when the majority
considers them quite goofy. It is still perfectly acceptable to
state that these alternate or eccentric points of view are somewhat
removed from the beaten track.
I'm sorry, but suggesting that World War II was started by a Jewish conspiracy
is not "goofy". It is deeply offensive to the memories of the victims of
Naziism, and entirely at odds with the facts.
It was certainly not my intention to enter into the semantics of the
word "goofy". Anything entirely at odds with the facts can be
encompased by this term, as can anything inspired by little green men
aboard flying saucer, as can anything that has been a fit subject for
Generoso Pope's most famous periodical. Gareth's denial that the
mentioned Jewish conspiracy is "goofy" seems to put him at odds with
himself.
The simple fact is that some people do sincerely believe such things.
Their serious delusions are not an adequate basis for imputing motives
of hatred. When Gareth quoted me he left off the second sentence. Even
there I said nothing about World War II or Jewish conspiracies. Why
should he find it so offensive that I should even suggest that they are
goofy?
I, for one, will have nothing to do with any project
that, implicitly or
explicitly, grants credibility to such a viewpoint. To do so would not be
neutrality, but an abrogation of moral, intellectual and human responsibility
to record and report accurately on those events.
Gareth's intolerant approach to these stories is what gives them
credibility, and fuels their perpetuation. When someone raises these
theories, I'm content to have them gently manoeuvred into some backwash
section of the article saying, "That's what some people believe; go
figure." I too view the Nazi era as an aberation, but this would not
justify my adopting their tactics to suppress dissenting opinion and
free speech.
Eclecticology