nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

YouTube announces it will no longer recommend conspiracy videos

Dohnjoe

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/youtube-announces-it-will-no-longer-recommend-conspiracy-videos-n969856

The examples the company cited include "promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, claiming the earth is flat, or making blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11."

About time.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Reitliger somehow misplaced near 2 million Jews.

How many historians, researchers, scholars and experts would you say have worked to calculate how many Jews died during the Holocaust? Do you have any idea?

nullzero

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Thank you

I've said it many times before, any of us who debate against this type of nonsense must be sadists. And this is nothing compared to proper conspiracy and holocaust denial forums.

I think the term you might be looking for is masochist as opposed to sadist, unless of course your whole reason for being here is to inflict misery on others, which given what's gone on here may not be outside the bounds of possiblity.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

How many historians, researchers, scholars and experts would you say have worked to calculate how many Jews died during the Holocaust? Do you have any idea?

Read the first line.

You believe he misplaced 2 million Jewish people, ok :rolleyes:
He knew the six million number was wrong then.
I spend enough time on this now. We agree to disagree.
You know we not going to accept each other version of events, so its pointless.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

4,194 was, not 4,.2. Scholars round of 4.2, again another lie.

He says there some problems, with 4.5 ( with new evidence, be around that)

Okay, I have a background in history so I'm just gonna explain historiography which you seem to struggle with. It regularly faces revisions. For a vast variety of reasons this occurs. In the case of estimated deaths of Jews during the Holocaust, new data became available as the decades progressed and this resulted in clearer numbers.

It's a massive ask to expect absolutely accurate conclusion 9 years after the end of the year. He's a useful contemporary source but not the absolute truth in any way for a part of how it was viewed. You also seem to be actively ignoring all other historians. You don't use a single other source in historiography to prove a point because the rest of them don't suit you...

Dohnjoe

nullzero wrote: »

I think the term you might be looking for is masochist as opposed to sadist, unless of course your whole reason for being here is to inflict misery on others, which given what's gone on here may not be outside the bounds of possiblity.

*Misery on Holocaust deniers, 911 truthers, chemtrail believers and the rest of the conspiracy circus apparently

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

He knew the six million number was wrong then.

No. What you are doing is plucking one estimate after the end of the war, one post-war 6 million figure from one source, out of many estimates.

Reitlinger did his own research and came up with his figures. As other historians did their research and new info came to light the estimates changed

Its pretty straightforward, it's how history research works.

You know we not going to accept each other version of events, so its pointless.

It's not "my" version of events. You are claiming that Reitlinger's research on the Holocaust, published in 1953 is absolutely infallible, which is an absurd view, especially considering that you have been a consistent Holocaust denier on these forums.

Cheerful Spring2

Deleted User wrote: »

Okay, I have a background in history so I'm just gonna explain historiography which you seem to struggle with. It regularly faces revisions. For a vast variety of reasons this occurs. In the case of estimated deaths of Jews during the Holocaust, new data became available as the decades progressed and this resulted in clearer numbers.

It's a massive ask to expect absolutely accurate conclusion 9 years after the end of the year. He's a useful contemporary source but not the absolute truth in any way for a part of how it was viewed. You also seem to be actively ignoring all other historians. You don't use a single other source in historiography to prove a point because the rest of them don't suit you...

Mick very few historians calculated the numbers. Most books since the 90s are stories about holocaust survivors and the camps.

The same names from the past., are noted today, as right. People do differ about the numbers, but that does not mean Gerald reitiliger research wrong. It's a pick who you believe really! If reitliger did not know about the six million disappeared, you have a point, but he did, and still went lower to just above 4 million. .

Cheerful Spring2

nullzero wrote: »

I think the term you might be looking for is masochist as opposed to sadist, unless of course your whole reason for being here is to inflict misery on others, which given what's gone on here may not be outside the bounds of possiblity.

This is one thread that should be closed, gone way off topic.

Hope Dohnjoe feels the same way?

nullzero

Dohnjoe wrote: »

*Misery on Holocaust deniers, 911 truthers, chemtrail believers and the rest of the conspiracy circus apparently

Not all heroes wear capes...

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

*Misery on Holocaust deniers, 911 truthers, chemtrail believers and the rest of the conspiracy circus apparently

Join a Skeptic forum, you be posting less, same people will agree with you.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Mick very few historians calculated the numbers. Most books since the 90s are stories about holocaust survivors and the camps.

The same names from the past., are noted today, as right. People do differ about the numbers, but that does not mean Gerald reitiliger research wrong. It's a pick who you believe really! If reitliger did not know about the six million disappeared, you have a point, but he did, and still went lower to just above 4 million. .

Why do you have a single source from 1953 and no other? You'll also find there are branches of historiography that literally do focus primarily on the numbers...

Cheerful Spring2

Deleted User wrote: »

Why do you have a single source from 1953 and no other? You'll also find there are branches of historiography that literally do focus primarily on the numbers...

I finished debating the holocaust. It taking up too much of time replying to everyone every day. I can't write long replies to every post. Replying to you
now this debate will never end!

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Mick very few historians calculated the numbers. Most books since the 90s are stories about holocaust survivors and the camps.

Jesus christ

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I finished debating the holocaust.

You aren't debating the Holocaust in any way, you are engaging in classic denial. Based on past experience, I suspect you aren't finished.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It's a pick who you believe really! If reitliger did not know about the six million disappeared, you have a point, but he did, and still went lower to just above 4 million. .

Again, why pick him out of all the Historians who have researched the holocaust?
Why do you believe his research to be the most accurate even after 70 years of new data and research?

What other historians have you read? Why do you reject their research?
Why do so many historians get it wrong?
Why do you support support Reitliger when he disagrees with your other claims?
Why do you support his numbers as gospel truth when previously you claimed the number was 2-3 million?

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You believe he misplaced 2 million Jewish people, ok :rolleyes:

Again, when you were asked this, you posted nothing of merit and then ran away from your fantasy claims because you had no evidence for them.

According to you, 2 million Jewish people disappeared into thin air.

And again, you believe that this is due to a Jewish lead conspiracy to inflate the numbers.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Again, when you were asked this, you posted nothing of merit and then ran away from your fantasy claims because you had no evidence for them.

According to you, 2 million Jewish people disappeared into thin air.

And again, you believe that this is due to a Jewish lead conspiracy to inflate the numbers.

Go to bed. Thread finished.

[Deleted User]

nullzero wrote: »

This thread has been off topic all week and you're correct in saying its a dumpster fire. However as you and King Mob have been largely influential in making it a dumpster fire

Again, I just brought up Holocaust denial as an example of a nonsense conspiracy theory that people genuinely believe.

It's weird how you keep blaming us and make personal comments about us, yet you still avoid making any comments about the holocaust denier or the holocaust denial on the thread.

I would ask if you believe if any of his arguments are valid or convincing, but that kind of question usually leads you to misconstrue it as an accusation. So I will assume that you don't find any of his arguments are valid and that you, like us, realise how ridiculous and dishonest they are. Again, feel free to correct me if my assumption there is wrong.

So to get back on topic, what about holocaust denial like cheerful's makes it "unacceptable" to you?
Why is it an unacceptable "alternate" thought now you have an example of holocaust denial you don't believe is driven by racism against Jewish people?

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Go to bed. Thread finished.

And again, you avoid the question you can't address.

Where do you believe the 2 million other Jewish people went cheerful?

What evidence do you have to support these claims?

The Nal

Deleted User wrote: »

Okay, I have a background in history so I'm just gonna explain historiography which you seem to struggle with. It regularly faces revisions. For a vast variety of reasons this occurs. In the case of estimated deaths of Jews during the Holocaust, new data became available as the decades progressed and this resulted in clearer numbers.

It's a massive ask to expect absolutely accurate conclusion 9 years after the end of the year. He's a useful contemporary source but not the absolute truth in any way for a part of how it was viewed. You also seem to be actively ignoring all other historians. You don't use a single other source in historiography to prove a point because the rest of them don't suit you...

Welcome to conspiracy theory world. Where one source is enough.

Quite literally the definition of ignorance.

nullzero

King Mob wrote: »

Again, I just brought up Holocaust denial as an example of a nonsense conspiracy theory that people genuinely believe.

It's weird how you keep blaming us and make personal comments about us, yet you still avoid making any comments about the holocaust denier or the holocaust denial on the thread.

I would ask if you believe if any of his arguments are valid or convincing, but that kind of question usually leads you to misconstrue it as an accusation. So I will assume that you don't find any of his arguments are valid and that you, like us, realise how ridiculous and dishonest they are. Again, feel free to correct me if my assumption there is wrong.

So to get back on topic, what about holocaust denial like cheerful's makes it "unacceptable" to you?
Why is it an unacceptable "alternate" thought now you have an example of holocaust denial you don't believe is driven by racism against Jewish people?

You brought up Holocaust denial on Wednesday morning at 11.21. That was page 12 of this thread, we are now on page 40. That is some job of taking a thread off topic. For you to end your post by saying "So to get back on topic" when holocaust denial is not the topic of the thread shows how deluded you are. This is no longer about YouTube not recommending conspiracy content, it is in your mind now a holocaust denial thread because you made it such. The hubris you're displaying in that statement of "So to get back on topic" is jaw dropping.
You're demanding a standard of discussion from others but you fail to meet it yourself, therefore you cannot expect others to humor you when you're a demonstrable hypocrite.

In relation to that I have made comments about you because you have made claims about me that I have repeatedly asked you to show evidence to support (something you Demand from people here regularly) and you have refused to even engage on those points, which are important things to clarify. It feels like if you repeat the lies you have said in relation to me enough times they will eventually be accepted as fact. Well they're not fact, and the onus is still on you to show evidence to support them.

I've already stated I disagree with this man's opinion on the holocaust, he's welcome to have his opinion, it isn't going to keep me awake at night knowing he thinks differently to me on the topic. What I would really like are the quotes of me saying I agree with him, because I know, as do you that they don't exist.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Mick very few historians calculated the numbers.

One of the most stupid posts in the history of the internet. Great stuff.

[Deleted User]

nullzero wrote: »

You brought up Holocaust denial on Wednesday morning at 11.21. That was page 12 of this thread, we are now on page 40. That is some job of taking a thread off topic.

And again, I brought up Holocaust denial as an example. One of many examples.
I'm not the one who barged onto the thread with false claims about the Holocaust.

nullzero wrote: »

For you to end your post by saying "So to get back on topic" when holocaust denial is not the topic of the thread

But I'm not saying that Holocaust denial is the topic of thread...

I'm using it as an example. You've said that holocaust denial like what Cheerful does is "unacceptable". I'm curious what you mean by this and why you find it unacceptable and what the difference between an acceptable form of alternative though and this would be.

nullzero wrote: »

What I would really like are the quotes of me saying I agree with him, because I know, as do you that they don't exist.

Never once said that...:rolleyes:

Dohnjoe

nullzero wrote: »

You brought up Holocaust denial on Wednesday morning at 11.21. That was page 12 of this thread, we are now on page 40. That is some job of taking a thread off topic. For you to end your post by saying "So to get back on topic" when holocaust denial is not the topic of the thread shows how deluded you are. This is no longer about YouTube not recommending conspiracy content, it is in your mind now a holocaust denial thread because you made it such. The hubris you're displaying in that statement of "So to get back on topic" is jaw dropping.
You're demanding a standard of discussion from others but you fail to meet it yourself, therefore you cannot expect others to humor you when you're a demonstrable hypocrite.

In relation to that I have made comments about you because you have made claims about me that I have repeatedly asked you to show evidence to support (something you Demand from people here regularly) and you have refused to even engage on those points, which are important things to clarify. It feels like if you repeat the lies you have said in relation to me enough times they will eventually be accepted as fact. Well they're not fact, and the onus is still on you to show evidence to support them.

I've already stated I disagree with this man's opinion on the holocaust, he's welcome to have his opinion, it isn't going to keep me awake at night knowing he thinks differently to me on the topic. What I would really like are the quotes of me saying I agree with him, because I know, as do you that they don't exist.

My prediction is that you will continue to validate, support and thank a Holocaust denier in this (or other) threads, as some sort of petty or contrarian-for-the-sake-of-it statement against those disagreeing with the Holocaust denial.

If I am wrong, even better.

nullzero

Dohnjoe wrote: »

My prediction is that you will continue to validate, support and thank a Holocaust denier in this (or other) threads, as some sort of petty or contrarian-for-the-sake-of-it statement against those disagreeing with the Holocaust denial.

If I am wrong, even better.

I have never validated holocaust denial or people supporting it in any way (please provide evidence that I have). Saying somebody has the right to have an opinion doesn't qualify as supporting their opinion.

And if you want to talk about "for the sake of it" arguments, you really need to look at your own contribution here.

Again you're making claims about me that can't be substantiated.

nullzero

King Mob wrote: »

And again, I brought up Holocaust denial as an example. One of many examples.
I'm not the one who barged onto the thread with false claims about the Holocaust.

But I'm not saying that Holocaust denial is the topic of thread...

I'm using it as an example. You've said that holocaust denial like what Cheerful does is "unacceptable". I'm curious what you mean by this and why you find it unacceptable and what the difference between an acceptable form of alternative though and this would be.

Never once said that...:rolleyes:

Holocaust denial is now the de facto topic of the thread because of your constant discussion of it. To say others barged in making false claims is false, they were replying to you after you raised the subject. You are deflecting your responsibility for this thread going way off topic.

I'll gladly go into detail about what I find unacceptable about Cheerful springs opinion on the holocaust as soon as you back up the claims you've been making about me.

Dohnjoe

nullzero wrote: »

I have never validated holocaust denial in any way (please provide evidence that I have).

Directly no.

Indirectly though..

All a holocaust denier needs is someone to indirectly back them up. They desperately need some, any form of validation. Someone "on their side" who has an issue or gripe with one or more of the posters debating against said Holocaust denier.

Of course that someone isn't a Holocaust denier, but they are indirectly supporting one by engaging in petty point-scoring against those on the other side of the debate for whatever reasons, often hiding behind a thin veneer of feigned objectivity and innocence as to what's really going on

Threads on "extreme" topics, of which there are many on this conspiracy forum, are no stranger to this behaviour

[Deleted User]

nullzero wrote: »

they were replying to you after you raised the subject.

Again, I brought up the topic only as an example of "alternative" thought that most people disagree with. I mentioned no facts or specifics of the topic.

I also brought up flat eartherism and creationism and if I remember right the idea of mass shootings being fake...

nullzero wrote: »

I'll gladly go into detail about what I find unacceptable about Cheerful springs opinion on the holocaust as soon as you back up the claims you've been making about me.

Well considering that the majority of the claims that you're complaining about I never made...
For example your last claim that I said that you agreed with cheerful's holocaust denial. I never once said that.
How can I provide backup for claims I never made?

I don't think you have any details about why you find cheerful's holocaust denial to be unacceptable, because it's an empty statement you made earlier to feign offence of the idea that silly claims like that might share aspects with the silly claims you like.

nullzero

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Directly no.

Indirectly though..

All a holocaust denier needs is someone to indirectly back them up. They desperately need some, any form of validation. Someone "on their side" who has an issue or gripe with one or more of the posters debating against said Holocaust denier.

Of course that someone isn't a Holocaust denier, but they are indirectly supporting one by engaging in petty point-scoring against those on the other side of the debate for whatever reasons, often hiding behind a thin veneer of feigned objectivity and innocence as to what's really going on

As this is a conspiracy forum, it's no stranger to that kind of behaviour

No, you're wrong.

The topic of this thread deals with freedom of expression. It is nearly a cliche to say that although I don't agree with what somebody is saying I will defend their right to say it but that is my stance.

That is indirectly backing someone up, this isn't even open to interpretation. You are just missing the point repeatedly.

If you want to talk about petty point scoring, look at your attitude towards me, you have made false statements about my opinion and have been asked to back those statements and failed to do so every time you have been asked. Instead you double down on this narrative of me backing Cheerful spring up when I have clearly stated that I disagreed with him days ago, more than once.
His opinion on the holocaust is something I don't agree with, he has recognised that I don't agree with him and been cordial to me. I am in effect on your side of the argument but you continue to lambast me for not being hard enough on him, but you're not understanding my perspective on things here, I don't agree with him but respect his right to be wrong.

Again, show me where I've done anything other than what I've detailed above, anything that supports your statements about me and my motivations. I'll make a prediction now, you won't, instead you'll continue to tell the lie until its accepted as fact, a tactic of the Nazi party as it happens.

Cheerful Spring2

There evidence in every thread you guys dislike free speech and what to censor topics and different opinions. You guys need to have a look in the mirror. You guys be the first people to put on fascism uniforms in an authoritarian society.