That doesn’t make their intentions good. It means Nazis might have THOUGHT their intentions were good, but that does not make them correct in their beliefs. Reality is not a function of motivation.
Right. And sincerely believing that kids would be better off in a dangerous, overcrowded, disease ridden residential facility did not make the intentions behind the IRS good.
If they ever really believed that. I tend to think they thought it would be better for white society and weren’t really concerned with indigenous hundred one way or another.
I mean if my analogy was pretty bad yours was “extremely bad”, conflating the nature of slave family separations with the temporary and partial separations involved in Indian boarding schools is simply not factual. No 10th grade history teacher would casually conflate them as the same thing. The process of weighing which is “bad” vs “more bad” is probably stupid and useless, and even a 10th grade history teacher would not waste time on that. But they also wouldn’t equate non-equivalent things, that’s just stupidity.
Could you cite where I did this?
I never claimed you did.
Okay… 
Then why did you say that my analogy was extremely bad if you are not claiming that I made such an analogy?
I think you are having problems with both facts and with basic logic here.
This was your analaogy:
It would be more like stating that the Nazis didn’t kill all the Jews, so it wasn’t genocide.
Let me know the next time you need my help explaining to you the basics of what you’ve actually posted in the last 10 minutes time.
Ah, then what were you going on about with the conflating of slaves then? That had no part of anything that I said.
Anyway, so you are saying that claiming that the Nazis didn’t commit genocide because they didn’t kill all the Jews wouldn’t be a form of genocide denial? Otherwise, your comments make no sense.
You are explicitly saying that what they did wasn’t all that bad. Even though the intent was to destroy the native culture, and the means caused great harm to both the children and the families they were taken from, it wasn’t genocide because some children actually went to day school.
I’m not sure your intent here, but your actions certainly do not prevent such atrocities from recurring, but rather to give cover to anyone who wishes to repeat them.
I will explain. No. It is too complicated - I will sum up.
Martin takes exception to an analogy K9 made, which he shows as an analogy to slavery that K9 never actually made.
K9 is confused by this, as he never made an analogy to slavery.
Martin doubles down and posts K9’s actual analogy, as if that somehow explains why he posted a different analogy in the first place.
Somehow, Martin feels that this means that the genocide in question was not that bad.
Also, I made the original analogy, except it wasn’t an analogy, it was an observation that family separation in general has a history of being treated less seriously when it happens to underprivileged groups.
Some of them went to day schools, and they knew who their parents were.
Therefore, not genocide. (I think that’s the argument, anyway. I don’t agree with it, so I may be missing something.)
Anyway, I suppose I’ll tackle his statement, even though it’s not related to what I said.
Some were temporary, the ones who did not die in custody, many of whom the families never knew what happened to them. Some were partial, but that some were partial does little to justify that most weren’t.
I’m not sure that a 10th grade history class is what we are going for here. That’s often a very superficial and usually whitewashed overview of history. We are looking for something a bit more advanced and nuanced than you learned in 10th grade history.
In any case, they were not “causally conflated” as the same thing. I read the post that you were referring to here, and that is not what was done. If that is what you got from it, no wonder you have such difficulty in understanding why removing children from their families to “remove the indian from them” is a form of genocide.
The example was given to show that white people do not value family relationships of non-whites as much as they value their own. It was not meant to compare the two as far as “bad” vs “more bad”, as you have chosen to fallaciously interpret it.
EDIT: apparently I was ninja’d by the person who originally made that statement.
I don’t understand why you are hung up on limiting yourself to a 10th grade history level of this subject.
And neither did the poster for whom you are somehow blaming me for their post. Your interpretation of it was flawed, and your response even more so.
This is actually one of the reasons I think this message board has drifted into low quality. The circlejerk aspect is fine and has always been there, but the just deliberate, and extremely tiring, misreading of basic threads of discussion is literally exhausting because to correct it you have to go back post by post and recreate a discussion that people should have been following all along (or refrained from interjecting into, either or.)
So let’s start:
Poster MandaJo posted this:
To which poster Delayed_Reflex later responded:
To which I responded:
To recap, MandaJo brought up slave separations, Delayed_Reflex mentions that was an insightful take, I added in to their comment that it is worth noting slave separations and residential boarding schools were dissimilar in several way.
Note that to this point, there is no antagonistic tone bet ween any of the posters I named and myself, it’s people just discussing a topic.
Then Lance Imbecile weighs in with this insight:
To which there is there a series of back and forth low quality posts, as Lance’s lack of intellect or intelligent analysis afford him no regard in my mind for being treated as a serious conversant in a discussion.
Note quite specifically what I am refuting from Lance–his claim that if you make any factual statements about an event, and if that event involves genocide, and your factual statements refine what another person has claimed about said genocide, that constitutes minimizing it. If you had followed the discussion to this point, it had clearly evolved from Lance claiming my note about slave separations and Indian boarding schools not be the same thing was evidence of genocide denial to me making the analogy that it is akin to someone correcting a luridly incorrect statement about the Holocaust as “holocaust denial”, e.g. refuting a claim that something the Nazis definitely never did (use space lasers) was “holocaust denial.” Because I guess Lance’s argument is the only proper discussion of genocides is to condemn them and not speak to them further, if other people in their condemnations say things that aren’t true, or even more simply say things you wish to refine or clarify, you should not do so–because that is genocide apologism. That’s one of the funnier things is I wasn’t even saying the comparison with slave separations was a bad comparison, I was simply pointing out it was a different set of circumstances. I do actually think on an emotional level for the parents, it was a reasonable comment that just as the separation of slave families was probably the most emotionally traumatizing aspect of American chattle slavery (for the slaves), even the temporary forced separation of Native American families was almost certainly extremely traumatizing as well.
At this point k9bfriender who I think hadn’t followed the discussion, or he if did he did so in a way that rendered him incapable of intelligently discussing it, basically starting foaming at the mouth about the space laser analogy being bad (ignoring the series of escalating stupidities from lance that had lead to that point in the discussion), I think make a post to k9 that references the slavery separations (i.e. what actually set off the entire chain of discussion) and k9 starts acting like he has no idea that discussion had even been going on, that he had not just interjected himself into a conversation (in loosest terms) between me and Lance on that very topic.
So there you have it, me having to recreate a discussion thread that was printed here on the forums in plain text, because people on this site so frequently simply choose to willfully misunderstand or misrepresented what other people say.
This is dishonest bullshit.
Given your previous posts quite deliberately misrepresented the flow of discussion, I won’t be addressing the topic any further with you in this thread. In my experience on this forum, over many years, when a person turns a discussion into deliberately obtuse fracturing of debating what has and hasn’t been said, no further meaningful discussion can be had. I already did the unpleasant work of having to retype most of the conversation that occurred over 10+ posts, that you launched yourself into and pretend to not know the flow or context of, for specific purpose of muddying the waters. There is literally no meaningful or intelligent discourse to be had with people who behave this way.
Now I see why you are having such difficulty with this, given your one sided and poor interpretation of the discussion.
You thought wrong.
Indicate where I “foamed at the mouth”?
Actually the way that you worded it, it seemed as though you thought that I was the one who made that statement. I was aware that it was part of the conversation, but your poor communication skills made what you were aware of rather ambiguous.
But, to the point, you entirely misinterpreted the reason for the slave separation bit, claiming it to be an analogy of residential schools, rather than as it was presented, and example of how white people do not value the family connections of non-whites. You didn’t respond to this, instead, started “foaming at the mouth” about how your 10th grade history teacher wouldn’t have said that.
Good for you!!
Next time though, a little less deliberate misinterpretation of what you just typed out, okey dokey?
It was never worded that way, you simply chose to dishonestly represent what I had said, which makes you a dishonest poster. Dishonest posters are not worth the time of day. Also–you’re a piece of shit, go fuck yourself.
OMG! Would you talk to your 10th grade history teacher with that mouth?
Just adding in it’s been a few days since the last time I read one of your posts and they remain low quality and low intelligence, typical of people with the unfortunate collection of mental illnesses and defects with which you are afflicted.
I’ll agree with your assessment that you are a person who turns a discussion int deliberately obtuse fracturing of debating what has and hasn’t been said, and no further meaningful discussion can be had.
I simply pointed out that you were making a poor analogy, to which you responded with poor communication skills. Anyone who would have read that exchange would have thought that you were attributing the slave separation comment to me, I only meant for you to take a closer look at who you were attributing what to. Turns out that you were just bad at expressing yourself.
I do like it when people use the passive voice in order to be ambiguous like you do here, as I pretty much assume that they are talking about themselves.