I didn’t mean it’s off-limits. I agree 100% open forum to discuss and dispute the evidence. By “distinct ballgame” I meant the subject typically lands on demands for serious in-depth respectful review of certain evidence starting points. Meaning you’re(Alex) probably not gonna jump down each individual rabbit hole while the 1.5-mil/100days datapoint hasn’t even been contested/addressed. To which an honest skeptic (or even holohoaxer) should respond “I haven’t looked into it remotely well enough, I’ll have to get back to you.”I don't think that's really true. I've engaged with these holohoaxers here on the forum multiple times.
many other posts too. the holohoaxers actually caused me to do a little bit more research... not that anymore was required especially since the nazis admitted to killing 6 million jews at nuremberg... their number not mine... but I did find some new and interesting stuff which I posted... like the 1.5 million killed in the death camps in 100 days info.
For instance an argument like “Death camps wouldn’t have maternity wards.” might be completely valid point for argument, but it’s just a rabbit hole until someone either bring actual research(as opposed to simple talking points) to the table for discussion, or addresses the pieces that are already on the table.
In other words it’s an issue of where/how/how-high the bar is set for discourse on the subject.
Nobody really takes offense when they hear someone disagree on Bigfoot reporting. So conversely / obviously, social connotation will always be a huge limiter or guide for a topic like recent historic human genocides. In my opinion.