Oooh, now I understand. If by “genocide” you mean “a bad thing”, then you are correct.
Most other people in the world might be a little confused, though, because generally the word “genocide” has a definition that’s a bit more precise than that.
Did they ignore a burgeoning health crisis with the intention of using said crisis to decimate a group they disliked? This is precisely what Ukranians painstakingly proved the Soviets did in the Holodomor. They went through all the work of proving that intent because that is what makes the Holodomor a genocide.
Or did they deliberately ignore a burgeoning health crisis because they believed it would only impact people they don’t care about? This is what Trump did in 2020 but you’d hardly say he committed a genocide against elderly people.
Your sentence can be read both ways. Classic motte and bailey argument. When challenged on the idea that Reagan wasn’t implementing a final solution to the gay question, you’ll move the goal posts and pretend you are being challenged on an entirely different claim.
You must be incredibly fucking stupid if you think that saying that the Reagan admin’s response to AIDS was not genocide is remotely similar to saying that it is perfectly acceptable. Are you some kind of moronic being possessing only two categories to file things under, “genocide” and “perfectly alright”?
Quoting shit out of order is a bit silly, in your words. You accused me of using the word genocide before I ever used it, and applying to a context where I still haven’t used it.
I will let Miller speak to Reagan’s deliberate denial of funding and speculation on whether aids was a divine punishment.
His word substitution perfectly illustrated why it wouldn’t be a genocide. Have you ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition referred to as a genocide? That would be an example of a time that someone tried to eliminate Judaism (at least within Spain), and like I said I’ve never heard anyone refer to the Spanish Inquisition as a genocide.
If you called what Republicans are doing a transgender Inquisition, you’d probably be closer to the mark.
In before idiots like Crowmanyclouds and Dertrihs decide to take this post as support of the Inquisition, because I consider it to be a different sort of humanitarian crime than genocide.
The entire point of not calling it genocide is to characterize it as “perfectly alright”. It was genocide, it was intended as genocide and they barely even tried pretending it was anything else. The Right has always treated AIDS as a tool of God to kill sinners.
The context in which I used it was about deliberate negligence towards AIDS in the 1980s and its effect on gay men, not about persecution of transfolk in the 2020s.
She expressed hurt right after I made an anti-Demon Tree statement in my thread about the Ziz cult. That led to ATMB, where she expressed hurt directly to me. I urged her to genuinely renounce her transphobia, and try to make amends for it, as a basis for going forward, if she really has had a change of heart.
I’ve never seen her show any vulnerability before. She only did so in response to me.
Anyway, I just remembered something from years ago, on an email list of a ragtag bunch of queer witches, there was one who started berating me for being trans, and I got my hackles up, and things got pretty hostile. Next thing I know, that individual comes out as a trans man, who had been bottling up his need to transition, making him ornery on the subject. He had been getting bad advice to repress his transness. As soon as he came out, I welcomed him as my brother and we became fast friends.
So just to be perfectly clear… you’re claiming that the entire reason I don’t consider Reagan’s lack of response to AIDS (or, presumably, the Spanish Inquisition) is because I believe these things were perfectly alright?
I have no idea what this game is and I’m not really interested in playing.
Almost exactly what I was thinking. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen you back yourself into an obviously wrong point-scoring battle and, when confronted with being wrong, you get increasingly obtuse to avoid apologizing for your error. Dropping your whole “BUT YOU CALLED IT GENOCIDE!” nonsense is quite welcome.
That’s exactly the claim I asked Miller for evidence of, although he didn’t actually outright make it, as I showed in the post where I called out his ambiguous language.
You haven’t provided any evidence of that claim, either. I linked the sort of evidence that Ukranians use to prove that the Soviet’s handling of the Holodomor was intentional, not neglectful. Where is the similar evidence for the US government?
Aww, that’s so sad! Queue the world’s smallest violin:
Given the opinions you’ve displayed on this and a number of other issues, I am relieved to hear that.
It’s pretty telling how hard you assholes are going after me because I disagree with you over a word. All with the implications (or outright statements in DerTrihs’ case) that I approve of Reagan’s actions because I’d use a different term to describe them.
