this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2022
17 points (90.5% liked)
World News
32297 readers
1140 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This does not support your position that they are "self certified genocidal" and "fascist. What you have linked to quite explicitly states "the people are good, the government is bad".
You are committing a form of soft holocaust denial when you misuse the term genocide to describe something that is objectively not a genocide. It's extremely offensive to actual victims of genocide and very damaging when we have to raise the issue of real genocides.
The holocaust has nothing to do with this. In fact, its kind of funny that you brijg it up, because the holocaust is treated as the worst genocide ever, when the vast majority of people killed by Nazi Germany were ethnic slavs and Russians.
Distorting the meaning of the term genocide is well recognised as soft holocaust denial and stating this just shows how little you have ever read about the topic of holocaust denial and the muddying of the meaning of the word genocide.
I dont care what you and your buddies have recognized, and the term "soft holocaust denial" is complete nonsense.
It's a real term whether you think it's nonsense or not
maybe on twitter...
Now I know you didn't even Google it because no. You're very wrong.
Searched it, and it looks like all usage of the term is from the Zionist lobby. Not surprising, because they use the holocaust as justification for occupation and genocide in Palestine.
They surely do abuse the term, but not always. Which don't change the fact that banalisation of genocide, not necessary only holocaust, is a form of genocide denial - genocide here, genocide there, genocide for everyone, one more, one less, real or aspulled in Langley...
This here is clear example as the one guy above posted the table and got immediately destroyed in next comment - Ukrainian atrocities against Donbas definitely have most of the marks of genocide, and Ukraine definitely is trying to spin tale of "russian genocide" on Ukrainians partially to hide the fact they were shelling civilians for 8 years.
Analogy between Israel and Palestine is coming to mind very quickly, but the roles aren't as libs imagine them to be. To get a full picture imagine a third country attacking Israel.
I think you need to learn where the origin of the word genocide comes from. The word was developed in direct response to the holocaust by Raphäel Lemkin in 1944. The word did not exist before then.
You can not disconnect the word genocide from its origin as a word that was specifically created to prevent people from being able to deny the holocaust, a huge amount of effort was put into making sure the holocaust would be extremely difficult to revise and/or forget by contorting it into something other than what it was.
When you misuse it, you are directly taking part in misusing an important word in describing and defending the holocaust, developed specifically for the purposes of preventing holocaust denial.
It is an action the helps holocaust deniers by changing the meaning of the word genocide. It is soft holocaust denial.
Most Jews in Polish territory back then were of Polish nationality.
Sue me.
I really don't think that's a constructive response to someone pointing out you're doing soft holocaust denial. It's pretty concerning behaviour actually. Weakening and misusing words like genocide and fascism actively helps fascists.
A long time ago, I stopped caring about shaming, ad hominem, accusations and downvoting. If one wishes to change my mind, one has two ways. Either be accepted as a trusted source of knowledge or insight, or threaten me with something real to force my behaviour (not necessarily my opinion). The choice is yours. :-)
This is a very liberal attitude. CNN is a "trusted source of knowledge or insight" to millions of people but should it be? Absolutely fucking not.
The merit of what is being said and the evidence presented stands on its own, regardless of the source it is coming from. You should just content on merit, not on institutions and positions with manufactured prestige.
This whole mindset is what leads people to blindly believing anything they see from xyz source even when those sources put out mountains and mountains of absolute bullshit all the time.
In this very thread you have lied more than once, linking to content from russian state media with the claim that it says something it does not. That is a fact and not at all "ad hominem". Debatebro rubbish also became cringe at least a decade ago.
<3
See this shit here is worse than the shit that the admins have been tone policing people for. This is just intentionally inflammatory, adds nothing, and is participation in completely bad faith. Jog on mate.
<3
Lib
<3
"If you want to change MY mind you gotta be an authority figure or threaten me!" — a free thinker
<3