So about 2 hrs ago, as of typing this first tweet, I was notified of this terrible take from the depths of Hell. The literal antithesis of everything I believe and work for. So, after a great deal of rage, let's do what Norman wants and read his work. So I can destroy it. /1

Yes. Goodnight, everybody! /1

Depends. Some victim groups have their own names for their genocide. I view the Nazis as a group that committed multiple concurrent genocides collectively known as The Holocaust. Also, a majority of Jewish victims being shot in pits, does not prove what you think it does. /3

He's building to a BS point here but I wanted to break this off on its own. The Holocaust was a genocide. The Rwandan massacres of Tutsis was a genocide. That's the comparison. Not industrial murder and machetes.

Also, history doesn't repeat itself. It rhymes. /4

I've actually had this debate with someone in favor of outlawing denial of the Armenian genocide. I believe in dragging genocide denial into the light with facts and evidence. No one is muzzled. They just can't win the debate. In an objective match-up, denialism fails quickly. /5

Yes. The Prime Minister is a political leader who weaponizes popular perceptions of history against his enemies. If he is lecturing college students on the Holocaust, mistakes have been made long before his lecture began. /6

I am pretty sure he's proud of that "gotcha" there. It's almost adorable. /7

Students in a classroom expect an education based on facts. If there was a science class that spent a day explain why the moon was made of cheese, you would pull your child out of that class immediately because the knowledge was false and useless. /8

Let's roll with the theory though. 99.9% of media informs the population that the Holocaust happened so what's the harm in two-hours of a counter-narrative?

The professor would be citing conspiracy theories & anti-Semitism for their lecture all the while playing it straight. /9

So you preach conspiratorial hatred for two hours to balance the scales. Well, even if 99% of the class understands what you are doing, someone will be inoculated AGAINST fact-based Holocaust education; against evidence. You will create deniers. /10

It's not a damn conviction! It's not an opinion!

If I show my students the minutes of the Wansee Conference and one asks how I know its the truth, I remind them that we are looking at the smuggled out primary source material from the Wansee Conference. /11

You know what? I agree. Holocaust deniers deserve to have their hearing. And they did.

It was Irving v Penguin Books Limited, Deborah E. Lipstadt and it was settled by a judge in April of 2000. Historical truth won and denialism lost in a British court. /12

My name is Michael Carter. I have a AA, BA, & MA all centered on my focus on history and the history of genocide. I have been specifically trained to tell others about the historical record and there are thousands of folks better at it than me. Piss off with this. /13

This entire bit is absolute crap. "Can't be compared?" Really, there are literally a multitude of comparative genocide publications. The only person who says stuff like this is one who has zero concept of the existing literature. /14

There is a literal subsect of transitional justice and history at large that deals with memory including its reliability issues. I also have had the opportunity to be a former student and a current friend to a scholar dealing with these questions of Holocaust memory. /15

As much rage and bile I spewed in preparation for this, this article has revealed itself to just be pathetic. It is a strawman. It is preaching about Holocaust education without a single idea of what it looks like at the college level. It's just sad and pathetic. /16

Cool. Then take a denier and put him in a room with @waitmanb as well as eleven other Holocaust scholars of his choosing. The denier can be advocatus diaboli for the experts rather than risking poisoning the minds of impressionable students for culture war nonsense like this. /17

*chief's kiss* /18

Historians do the readings. They have turned over the archives. Experts know every scrap and detail they can find. They know the scraps better than the amateur and the denying "skeptic" does. There is no value in promoting, let alone thanking, the denier for any reason. /19

Is the Lost Cause some kind of bad history singularity that all ahistorical BS gravitates towards as if it was collapsed star? /20

Nope.

When? Less important. Generally sometime between Kristallnacht and Wannsee Conference if you want to make it a debate.

Why? Conspiracy theory, anti-Semitism, and blood myth justified the creation of an ethnic-hierarchy based Germanic empire in Europe. There done. /21

Was the sun blue? No.

Was the Holocaust an attempt by Nazis and their allies to annihilate Jews and other undesirables in Europe? Yes.

These aren't opinions. These are facts. You don't debate if the sun is blue. Period. It isn't a suppression. They lost the debate. /22

Not only is this morally wrong, the analogy is wrong. When a child is vaccinated, a trained professional administers a killed form of the microbe. A doctor does not bring a mumps patient to couch on the infant. Historians are the doctors, the primary sources are the vaccine. /22

Historians are the professionals using a distilled version of the material (lectures, excerpts of sources, etc.) to deliver the facts. We are the one's inoculating the students to handle themselves against falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and lies. /23

The deniers are the ones running around without masks during a pandemic coughing, spitting, and licking everywhere they can so that they can get attention. The last place they should be is on a college campus where they can undo the work of actual educators. /24

Wrong again, Norman. If social media allows hate-mongers to communicate, organize, and recruit than cutting them out of social media makes sense if you want to curb their organization via the two largest social media platforms. /25

Now we get to the temper tantrum that he called a postscript. /26

He tweeted at numerous outlets about this. Right-wingers seem to forget that the First Amendment means you don't get shipped to a prison for your speech. It does not mean that private companies and platforms cannot hold you accountable for it. /27

So when platforms decide not to cosign promoting genocide denial, they aren't oppressing anyone. They are practicing their own freedom of speech and curating their own private space. The Intercept isn't a public utility. It owes you nothing. /28

I am convinced Norman does not know what "Identify Politics", "free speech", or "Holocaust denial" actually mean. /29

Whoop, there it is.

@AntisemitismCow, I believe this is your territory. /30

And this is how the tantrum ends. By the way, I support platforms banning people for bigotry. There is a discussion to be had about separating Israel from anti-Semitism but this isn't the way to have it. /31

Despite raving about the misuse of The Holocaust, that is exactly what he did in the piece. However, his goal is far more insidious. In his world, he would endanger the critical thinking/historical literacy of students to score cheap, culture war points against his enemies. /e