See, this is what I mean. Spicer didn't actually deny the Holocaust.
According to the working definition of Holocaust denialism and distortion used by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, of which the United States and the Netherlands (where the Anne Frank Center is located) are members of, his statements actually do constitute it. Holocaust denial is not merely the denial of its historical existence, but publicly denying or calling into doubt principal mechanisms of genocidal destruction such as the use of gas chambers. The Anne Frank Center is acutely aware of how assertions such as his can be used for damaging propagandistic purposes.
I interned for the White House's communication department last summer. You know how the first rule of the
Fight Club is that you don't talk about the fight club? The first rule of political communications is that unless the specific topic you're addressing is the Holocaust or Hitler, you do not talk about the Holocaust or Hitler. Ever. You do not employ either for comparative or metaphorical intent. You just don't. Yes, others besides Spicer have made that error, and that's precisely why interns are trained not to repeat it. We're also instructed to never use the word niggardly, because even though it's etymologically unrelated to the racial slur and has a nonracial dictionary definition, it will be excised from its context and misconstrued. We learned about the aide to the mayor of DC in the 90s who used the word with precise appropriateness to the speech about budgets he was delivering, but how it was extracted from its intent stirred up such an outrage he was compelled to resign. It was ingrained in us that we must consider not just what we mean with what we say or write, but how millions of ears and eyes will interpret our words in the present and in time to come.
A. Intent matters, B. Like I said earlier, technically, what he said is accurate, in the context of what he was talking about.
How many times on this forum have you encountered quotes that were butchered from their context, stripped of intent, and proffered as evidence to promote an agenda? Oftentimes that agenda has been diametric to what the person who originally made the statement actually supported, but the literalness of the words were still used to advance it. If you need a specific example, PM me and I'll give it to you there to avoid derailing this thread. Holocaust deniers and history revisionists will seize upon Spicer's statements, and will use them for decades to come, without regard to intent.
