I completely agree. That's the problem I have with GEM's argument too. Not
all Jews are in conspiracy against the Western world. If anything, it's the select ones who're at the top. We shouldn't paint with such a wide brush.
Here's where you lose me. You said: "people believe what they want to believe and choose their "facts" most often to try and prove the point they are trying to get across."
'Well, if everybody in North America is forced to attend a school training in sensitivity or in Holocaust awareness and is taught to study the final solution, about which nothing was actually done by this country or North America or the United Kingdom while it was going on but lets say as if in compensation for that everyone's made to swallow an official and unalterable story of it now and it's taught as the great moral exemplar the great modern equivalent of the morally lacking elements of the Second World War a way of stilling our uneasy conscience about that combat, if that's the case with everybody as it more or less is and one person gets up and says, 'You know what, this Holocaust? I'm not sure it even happened. In fact, I'm pretty certain it didn't. Indeed I begin to wonder if the only thing is that the Jews brought a little bit of violence on themselves'. That person doesn't just have a right to speak, that person's right to speak must be given extra protection because what he has to say must have taken him some effort to come up with.
Might be, might contain, a grain of historical truth. Might, in any case, give people to think about
why do they know what they already think that they know? How do I know that I know this, except that I've always been taught this and never heard anything else? It's always worth establishing,
first a principle, saying 'What would you do if you met a flat Earth society member?' 'Come to think of it, how can I prove the Earth is round?' 'Am I sure about the theory of evolution? I know it's supposed to be true. Here's someone who says no such thing, it's all intelligent design'. 'How sure am I in my own views?'
Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus and the feeling that whatever you think you're bound to be okay because you're in the safely moral majority."
Christopher Hitchens on Free Speech
There's a certain degree of trust involved in the realm of "fact" and what you "know" depends entirely on who you trust. If one's presented with two sets of contrasting evidence, one believes what one wants to believe, as you said, and one trusts that the people they align themselves with is interpreting the data the right way. Therefore, I don't think any idea is worthy of ridicule... because how are you so sure it's untrue?