jfem2 –
If your blanket statement hypothesis were true, and modern feminists had a higher percentage of anti-holocaust deniers than others, it likely would “add some points” [albeit far fewer] to the holocaust deniers argument. However, as I haven’t defined what “adding some points” means yet, allow me to elaborate:
When I have a question, and I am unsure of the answer, I, like many others, look for clues. I don’t live my life with a constant need for absolute fact. When I see a group of misguided fools, who are organized for misguided foolery, having an outspoken opinion on the topic of which they have the least expertise and the most bias, I think “ding, ding ding, ding, a clue!” Now, the place I enter the discussion is with an opinion — the fools are likely wrong.
Obviously, when I have no question (like on the issue of whether the holocaust happened or whether men have greater objectifying tendencies) I have no need for clues, and the opinions of related or unrelated fools have no significance.
My point was that modern feminists are so clearly wrong (in my view) regarding their viewpoint on all differences between men and women, that them disagreeing with me on this, doesn’t make me right, but it helps me.
An apt holocaust comparison (if such a thing is possible) would be as follows:
If I say calling someone a “dirty Jew” is anti-Semitic, and Hitler vehemently disagrees with me, it doesn’t prove that I am right, but it sure helps a little, doesn’t it? Not on a logical scientific level, but on an intuitive level of truth.
Hitler’s opinion on feminism would be far less relevant, but might add some points to the other side. If I had the question.