Why is denying the Bucha massacre allowed on lichess? Do mods also allow holocaust denial?

@Alientcp said in #27:

Lol. Need to read a bit of history.

Yes there is more than a single opinion. The correct ones, incorrect ones, and there are plenty of opinions that are in between with a little bit of correct and incorrect opinions, with different degrees of certainty.

Whats to explain about freedom of speech? It has to be free, else it isnt free. I dont like language police, I dont like fascism.

Anything else you concluded other than me saying freedom of speech should be free and that politicians shouldnt control it, thats you.

Since the beginning of history.

Since a certain banker family name named saw an opportunity out of war for cash and same time world domination and that is mid 1850's

edit: They tend to say the 1%, but its the 1% of the 1% on population at least.

Give a man a gun and he can rob a Bank, Give a Bank a gun and it will rob the world.

@Cedur216 said in #14:

@Upstream1656 no. The truth always somehow prevails in the long term run. Take our knowledge on Iraq war (it was against law of nations and US used a false accusation) as a simple example.
You realise, do you not, that this is a fallacy along the lines of the survivor bias?

By definition we believe what we believe to be true about history to be true. That doesn't mean that we aren't wrong about some events of the past.

Obviously I am not denying the Holocaust or the Bucha massacre. I am just pointing that the thesis that "truth always prevails at the end" is unfalsifiable and therefore pseudo-scientific.

@whereof-thereof said in #32:

You realise, do you not, that this is a fallacy along the lines of the survivor bias?

By definition we believe what we believe to be true about history to be true. That doesn't mean that we aren't wrong about some events of the past.

Obviously I am not denying the Holocaust or the Bucha massacre. I am just pointing that the thesis that "truth always prevails at the end" is unfalsifiable and therefore pseudo-scientific.

You are responding to another person's reply bruh

May I ask you friendly, what are your sources to start with?

edit: As your motivation makes me wonder u is 1 or the other kind

@clousems said in #26:

By that logic, the only way a tolerant society could exist would be if they purged intolerance, which would, of course, make the society intolerant. Therefore, your argument amounts to a claim that tolerant societies are impossible.
And? That is exactly the point of the paradox of tolerance.
My post explains one aspect of a solution to that paradox.

Would you prefer an absolutely tolerant society?

@Upstream1656 said in #33:

You are responding to another person's reply bruh
I know, bruh. I quoted @Cedur216's message, and @Cedur216's message contained your username, so that pinged you, but my intention was not to reply to you.

@whereof-thereof said in #36:

I know, bruh. I quoted @Cedur216's message, and @Cedur216's message contained your username, so that pinged you, but my intention was not to reply to you.

it's ok ; )

@Upstream1656 said in #37:

it's ok ; )
I actually thought it was Cedur216 and those next questions are to him in any way.

This topic got mashed up by mis interpretations and understandings same time it seem. Looks like a mid game.

@InkyDarkBird said in #35:

Would you prefer an absolutely tolerant society?

Wasnt for me, but I will answer.

Yes.