TV Show recommendations

[tyroneman]

Started Armando Iannucci's new show Avenue 5 and I'm 3 episodes in. . . not great I would have to say I don't find it anywhere near as good as his other stuff!

Agree...hopefully it's a slow burn and gets better.

Saw first episode of Danny McBride's Righteous Gemstones....again, hope it gets better like Vice Principals did

[screenexile]

Started Armando Iannucci's new show Avenue 5 and I'm 3 episodes in. . . not great I would have to say I don't find it anywhere near as good as his other stuff!

Agree...hopefully it's a slow burn and gets better.

Saw first episode of Danny McBride's Righteous Gemstones....again, hope it gets better like Vice Principals did

Did Vice Prinicpals get better?? I gave up quite quickly on that one!

[Main Street]

How quick?
I lasted 10 minutes with vice principals.

Babylon Berlin is on a season 3 now.
I decided to rewatch first, starting with S1 ep 1

[BennyCake]

Did anyone see the David Baddiel documentary 'Confronting Halocaust Denial' on BBC?

Couldn't say it was a very balanced program to be honest. Oh and there was an interesting fella from Ennis on it.

[screenexile]

Did anyone see the David Baddiel documentary 'Confronting Halocaust Denial' on BBC?

Couldn't say it was a very balanced program to be honest. Oh and there was an interest fella from Ennis on it.

It's hard to balance a programme like that... do you put Priests and Cardinals on a documentary about how the earth was formed?

[bennydorano]

Balance, seriously? I'd be interested to hear what way you would you provide balance to such a topic? Like, is there a counterpoint to actually put forward?

[Milltown Row2]

Balance, seriously? I'd be interested to hear what way you would you provide balance to such a topic? Like, is there a counterpoint to actually put forward?

Yeah was thinking that

[BennyCake]

Balance, seriously? I'd be interested to hear what way you would you provide balance to such a topic? Like, is there a counterpoint to actually put forward?

Well, he confronted only one denier. One who clearly wasn't very good at putting his point across. Or maybe that's why they chose him. Tar all deniers as nutcases like this fella, and it reinforces the story

Baddiel basically wouldn't tolerate any sort of differing opinion from his own. More or less, the history books say this happened, so if you say hmmm I don't think it was quite like that..., then you're clearly anti-Semitic and hate all Jews.

He interviewed one survivor who spoke of being separated from her family on arrival, and never seen them again, she then got too upset so they stopped filming. No mention of anything that went on in the camps, other than malnutrition, poor conditions. Wasn't very convincing to be honest.

I went into it with an open mind. The denier offered little argument (unsurprisingly), but neither did the other side.

[Main Street]

Balance, seriously? I'd be interested to hear what way you would you provide balance to such a topic? Like, is there a counterpoint to actually put forward?

Well, he confronted only one denier. One who clearly wasn't very good at putting his point across. Or maybe that's why they chose him. Tar all deniers as nutcases like this fella, and it reinforces the story

Baddiel basically wouldn't tolerate any sort of differing opinion from his own. More or less, the history books say this happened, so if you say hmmm I don't think it was quite like that..., then you're clearly anti-Semitic and hate all Jews.

He interviewed one survivor who spoke of being separated from her family on arrival, and never seen them again, she then got too upset so they stopped filming. No mention of anything that went on in the camps, other than malnutrition, poor conditions. Wasn't very convincing to be honest.

I went into it with an open mind. The denier offered little argument (unsurprisingly), but neither did the other side.

An open mind to what??  There is no denial argument. There are just degrees of denial, usually regurgitated nonsense, long discredited which our man in Ennis was unable to even get his ducks in a row.
Baddiel did made fleeting  reference  to the pseudo Leuchter Report  and the "historian"  David Irvine libel trial , Irvine being more educated that the Ennis chap.
If you were interested in the denial aspect, that debate that is dealt with in a film called Denial based on the book by Deborah Lipstadt History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier.

As a documentary, I thought it could have been better directed and edited. nevethelesss  it's well worth a view.

[BennyCake]

Balance, seriously? I'd be interested to hear what way you would you provide balance to such a topic? Like, is there a counterpoint to actually put forward?

Well, he confronted only one denier. One who clearly wasn't very good at putting his point across. Or maybe that's why they chose him. Tar all deniers as nutcases like this fella, and it reinforces the story

Baddiel basically wouldn't tolerate any sort of differing opinion from his own. More or less, the history books say this happened, so if you say hmmm I don't think it was quite like that..., then you're clearly anti-Semitic and hate all Jews.

He interviewed one survivor who spoke of being separated from her family on arrival, and never seen them again, she then got too upset so they stopped filming. No mention of anything that went on in the camps, other than malnutrition, poor conditions. Wasn't very convincing to be honest.

I went into it with an open mind. The denier offered little argument (unsurprisingly), but neither did the other side.

An open mind to what??  There is no denial argument. There are just degrees of denial, usually regurgitated nonsense, long discredited which our man in Ennis was unable to even get his ducks in a row.
Baddiel did made fleeting  reference  to the pseudo Leuchter Report  and the "historian"  David Irvine libel trial , Irvine being more educated that the Ennis chap.
If you were interested in the denial aspect, that debate that is dealt with in a film called Denial based on the book by Deborah Lipstadt History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier.

As a documentary, I thought it could have been better directed and edited. nevethelesss  it's well worth a view.

To see what both sides had to say.

It is interesting that there are laws in some countries where you're prosecuted for saying it didn't happen, or didn't happen how the history books said. Surely that sort of thing only fuels the doubters? I mean, with other conspiracy type events, I'd say you'd be looked upon as a madman if you said you believed the "true report" of Oswald assassinating JFK. But show any sign of an inkling of doubt here, and you're anti-Semitic.

[lenny]

Balance, seriously? I'd be interested to hear what way you would you provide balance to such a topic? Like, is there a counterpoint to actually put forward?

Well, he confronted only one denier. One who clearly wasn't very good at putting his point across. Or maybe that's why they chose him. Tar all deniers as nutcases like this fella, and it reinforces the story

Baddiel basically wouldn't tolerate any sort of differing opinion from his own. More or less, the history books say this happened, so if you say hmmm I don't think it was quite like that..., then you're clearly anti-Semitic and hate all Jews.

He interviewed one survivor who spoke of being separated from her family on arrival, and never seen them again, she then got too upset so they stopped filming. No mention of anything that went on in the camps, other than malnutrition, poor conditions. Wasn't very convincing to be honest.

I went into it with an open mind. The denier offered little argument (unsurprisingly), but neither did the other side.

An open mind to what??  There is no denial argument. There are just degrees of denial, usually regurgitated nonsense, long discredited which our man in Ennis was unable to even get his ducks in a row.
Baddiel did made fleeting  reference  to the pseudo Leuchter Report  and the "historian"  David Irvine libel trial , Irvine being more educated that the Ennis chap.
If you were interested in the denial aspect, that debate that is dealt with in a film called Denial based on the book by Deborah Lipstadt History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier.

As a documentary, I thought it could have been better directed and edited. nevethelesss  it's well worth a view.

To see what both sides had to say.

It is interesting that there are laws in some countries where you're prosecuted for saying it didn't happen, or didn't happen how the history books said. Surely that sort of thing only fuels the doubters? I mean, with other conspiracy type events, I'd say you'd be looked upon as a madman if you said you believed the "true report" of Oswald assassinating JFK. But show any sign of an inkling of doubt here, and you're anti-Semitic.

A tiny minority of complete nutters say the holocaust didn't happen. Everyone else accepts the truth, even the Germans are accepting of the truth even though it's very uncomfortable for them.

[BennyCake]

Balance, seriously? I'd be interested to hear what way you would you provide balance to such a topic? Like, is there a counterpoint to actually put forward?

Well, he confronted only one denier. One who clearly wasn't very good at putting his point across. Or maybe that's why they chose him. Tar all deniers as nutcases like this fella, and it reinforces the story

Baddiel basically wouldn't tolerate any sort of differing opinion from his own. More or less, the history books say this happened, so if you say hmmm I don't think it was quite like that..., then you're clearly anti-Semitic and hate all Jews.

He interviewed one survivor who spoke of being separated from her family on arrival, and never seen them again, she then got too upset so they stopped filming. No mention of anything that went on in the camps, other than malnutrition, poor conditions. Wasn't very convincing to be honest.

I went into it with an open mind. The denier offered little argument (unsurprisingly), but neither did the other side.

An open mind to what??  There is no denial argument. There are just degrees of denial, usually regurgitated nonsense, long discredited which our man in Ennis was unable to even get his ducks in a row.
Baddiel did made fleeting  reference  to the pseudo Leuchter Report  and the "historian"  David Irvine libel trial , Irvine being more educated that the Ennis chap.
If you were interested in the denial aspect, that debate that is dealt with in a film called Denial based on the book by Deborah Lipstadt History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier.

As a documentary, I thought it could have been better directed and edited. nevethelesss  it's well worth a view.

To see what both sides had to say.

It is interesting that there are laws in some countries where you're prosecuted for saying it didn't happen, or didn't happen how the history books said. Surely that sort of thing only fuels the doubters? I mean, with other conspiracy type events, I'd say you'd be looked upon as a madman if you said you believed the "true report" of Oswald assassinating JFK. But show any sign of an inkling of doubt here, and you're anti-Semitic.

A tiny minority of complete nutters say the holocaust didn't happen. Everyone else accepts the truth, even the Germans are accepting of the truth even though it's very uncomfortable for them.

Do they though? Or are they just afraid to say so, as they'll be attacked and called anti-Semitic or "complete nutters"?

[Estimator]

Moving on slightly from the Holocaust, has anyone one started watching Hunters on Amazon Prime. Great opening scene, then the rest of the episode was basically a set up for the rest of the Season.

[Main Street]

Balance, seriously? I'd be interested to hear what way you would you provide balance to such a topic? Like, is there a counterpoint to actually put forward?

Well, he confronted only one denier. One who clearly wasn't very good at putting his point across. Or maybe that's why they chose him. Tar all deniers as nutcases like this fella, and it reinforces the story

Baddiel basically wouldn't tolerate any sort of differing opinion from his own. More or less, the history books say this happened, so if you say hmmm I don't think it was quite like that..., then you're clearly anti-Semitic and hate all Jews.

He interviewed one survivor who spoke of being separated from her family on arrival, and never seen them again, she then got too upset so they stopped filming. No mention of anything that went on in the camps, other than malnutrition, poor conditions. Wasn't very convincing to be honest.

I went into it with an open mind. The denier offered little argument (unsurprisingly), but neither did the other side.

An open mind to what??  There is no denial argument. There are just degrees of denial, usually regurgitated nonsense, long discredited which our man in Ennis was unable to even get his ducks in a row.
Baddiel did made fleeting  reference  to the pseudo Leuchter Report  and the "historian"  David Irvine libel trial , Irvine being more educated that the Ennis chap.
If you were interested in the denial aspect, that debate that is dealt with in a film called Denial based on the book by Deborah Lipstadt History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier.

As a documentary, I thought it could have been better directed and edited. nevethelesss  it's well worth a view.

To see what both sides had to say.

It is interesting that there are laws in some countries where you're prosecuted for saying it didn't happen, or didn't happen how the history books said. Surely that sort of thing only fuels the doubters? I mean, with other conspiracy type events, I'd say you'd be looked upon as a madman if you said you believed the "true report" of Oswald assassinating JFK. But show any sign of an inkling of doubt here, and you're anti-Semitic.

A tiny minority of complete nutters say the holocaust didn't happen. Everyone else accepts the truth, even the Germans are accepting of the truth even though it's very uncomfortable for them.

Do they though? Or are they just afraid to say so, as they'll be attacked and called anti-Semitic or "complete nutters"?

What's your point Benny?
According to the stats that Baddiel presented, the % of holocaust denial nutters varies  but mainly lingers just above  above or below the 5%.
About the same as paedophiles.
Regardless if it's 2% or 4% or 10% figure,  holocaust denial is equated to an expression of something between extreme ignorance and hate. Again Benny what exactly is your point?  Is extreme ignorance or hate a reasonable excuse for an expression of a belief in holocaust denial? That Ennis man was selected because of his obvious stupidity, that you think someone eloquent  like irwin,  who also just happens to be fully discredited as a total fraud and charlatan, should have been interviewed instead of Ennis man?

[thewobbler]

Nowhere near as controversial. But I can understand the apathy.

Quite a few years ago, Tony Robinson led a c4 show with the premise of evaluating Dan Brown's the da Vinci code. Except as a Christian he spent the entire show describing everything as nonsense and unbelievable, while seemingly completely unaware that his own beliefs are based on a popular story.


I'm not a Holocaust denier btw. Just pointing out that an investigation with an agenda shouldn't be permitted on TV