FWIW it isn’t that straight forward legally but I don’t desire to delve into it further here. I don’t care enough about this topic to create a thread for it, but would probably post in such a thread if one were created.
It’s exactly that straightforward. Peace. See you later.
You suck at not delving further.
Well, this is why you are a lying, bigoted asshole. Calling me a Holocaust denier. Fuckhead.
You know or should know* that my Euro relatives were rounded up in 1939 by the Arrow Cross Nazi part, and sent to the Dachau concentration camp. (Dachau concentration camp - Wikipedia)
It takes some true asshole racist behavior to call me a Holocaust denier.
And this is why I think you are totally wrong for comparing the Canada situation with the real Holocaust. The two are truly, totally not comparable.
Does that mean that what happened in Canada isn’t horrible? No, of course it is horrible. Perhaps the Canadian government meant well (or perhaps not) but the end result was truly horrific. But it does not in any way shape or form compare to the real Holocaust, and trying to make that comparison is a form of Holocaust denial. It minimizes the real Holocaust.
Because of my close relation to the Holocaust itself, yes, I am not fond of throwing around the term “genocide” to include a whole range of horrible behavior. Radical Vegans have called killing animals for food = “genocide”. Do we have to agree with them, too?
So, yeah, the Canadian debacle was a horrible, really bad thing, but I do not want to include in the same same league as the Holocaust. You blithely calling anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest a “denier” is really fucked up, especially calling me that with my family history . Save it for the fucking Nazis who actually deny the real Holocaust happened. Not people who (while they totally agree it was bad) just happen to have a reasonable disagreement over whether or not the Canada situation really was or was not a “genocide”. We can all agree it was horrible without having to all agree it was technically a genocide. The Holocaust was a genocide. This? Maybe, maybe not.
*(you gave me a very hard time twice for not knowing you lived in South Africa, pointing out it was my responsibility for knowing that)
I’m not delving, I’m calling you uneducated.
Oh fuck off, mate. He didn’t say capital ‘H’ Holocaust denier; he said genocide denier, with the context clearly understood. I’m actually starting to think that you are a skillful concern troll.
Skillful?
Debatable, I reckon lol
You’ve demonstrated an inability to understand straightforward definitions so I’ll take your opinion on my level of education with a grain of salt.
I created a new thread in the Pit here.
He also used that term in the ATMB thread. “They almost all died from disease” kind of Holocaust denial."
He clearly compared the issue with Canada with the Holocaust and called anyone who disagreed with him "deniers’.
No one uses the term “denier” to talk about what happened to the North American Indians, that term is used in this context pretty much explicitly with Holocaust denier.
And there is a reason for that- reasonable people can debate whether or not what happened to the Indians in the USA is “genocide” or not without being a 'denier". We all know it happened, but “organized”? Damn, it was anything but organized. Was it genocide? Good debate question, but one where the “con” side are not “deniers”. So yeah, he used the term “denier” over and over to associate it with Holocaust denier, and you have to be really clueless to not realize that, especially as he specifically did use that term a few times.
Not to mention, no one is “denying” that the incident in Canada happened. He is just using that term to tar everyone who disagrees with him.
Why not Great Debates? Now, instead of a reasoned debate, you are gonna get name calling.
My original intention was to put it in Great Debates, and they can still move it if anyone wants. But the chance of the thread not going off the rails was so incredibly low because it’s a hot button issue, and the bulk of it would end up in this thread, I thought I’d start it where it would likely end up.
I have maintained for some time that he is an intentional asshole. That’s why he is one of only two people on my ignore list. He participates on the SDMB to shitpost and go after people and rile them up. I’d call him a straight-up troll, except he’s not consistent enough for that to be accurate.
Maybe?
I had a whole long post written in reply to the rest of your post and was about to hit “post” when I saw the link to the new thread Heffalump_and_Roo started. So I put it there instead.
You wanna trade credentials? My father’s side of the family lost 40 people in those camps. (My mother’s side was in Russia, and we just never found out what happened to most of them.)
And neither your family history nor mine has anything to do with what’s legitimate to say about other genocides.
Nobody’s calling you a Holocaust denier. We’re calling you a genocide denier. Which you are.
It does not.
If you chop it into that little bit and ignore the rest of what’s happened to the pre-Columbian population of the Americas over 400 years, of course it isn’t. If you consider it as part of the whole, then the whole is arguably worse. We have no idea how many people were deliberately killed; we know that entire cultures disappeared. Some of it was disease not intentionally spread; but a hell of a lot of it wasn’t.
Look: denying that anything else was a genocide does not make Jews safer. It endangers us even worse. Because yet again the problem is the overall attitude that there’s only One Right Way to be human and anybody who can’t or won’t get with the program must be gotten out of the way of it, by any means whatsoever. Allowing that behavior to be committed against anybody without calling it by its name increases our chances of having it used against us again. This isn’t a contest of who’s-had-it-worst. It’s a desparate defense effort that needs to be fought on all fronts, not just one.
Well past time that we started, then.
Yeah the natives fail your paper bag test.
Same thing, and a “denier” denies it happened. I do not deny it happened. It is my opinion that “cultural genocide” is not genocide. And that term is highly controversial.
Do you think the BBC is “denier”? Yet they also have issues with some of the definitions of “genocide”-
Genocide is understood by most to be the gravest crime against humanity.
It is defined as a mass extermination of a particular group of people - exemplified by the efforts of the Nazis to eradicate the Jewish population in the 1940s.
But behind that simple definition is a complicated tangle of legal concepts concerning what constitutes genocide and when the term can be applied…Since its adoption, the UN treaty has come under criticism from different sides, mostly by people frustrated with the difficulty of applying it to specific cases. Some have argued that the definition is too narrow; others that it is devalued by overuse…Mr Destexhe has voiced concern that the term genocide has fallen victim to “a sort of verbal inflation, in much the same way as happened with the word fascist”, becoming “dangerously commonplace”.
Michael Ignatieff, former director of the Carr Centre for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University, has agreed, arguing that the term has come to be used as a “validation of every kind of victimhood”.
“Slavery, for example, is called genocide when - whatever it was, and it was an infamy - it was a system to exploit, rather than to exterminate the living,” Mr Ignatieff said in a lecture.
*The differences over how genocide should be defined have also led to disagreements on how many genocides occurred during the 20th Century…Some say there was only one genocide in the last century: the Holocaust.
Others say there have been at least three genocides as defined by the terms of the 1948 UN convention:*
So if the experts quoted by the BBC have issues with how genocide is defined- and note, they do not include any instances of "cultural genocide’ including what the Canadian Government did- so I guess they are ‘deniers’ also.
Everyone who doesn’t agree with you- is a “denier”. or a racist or whatever. How nice to know you are so completely utterly in the right about a issue which has some of the greatest experts scratching their head, that you and Mr Dibble are smarter, that all those expert. Fuck -the UN can just fire it’s commission, you two alone will handle all the decisions about what is and what is not genocide. You don’t care about anyone else’s opinion, you are always and irrevocable right. Maybe you need to get a snazzy set of white slippers, cope and hat, you are infallible, right? Not only are you two so fucking sure that you, and you alone- are the arbiters, you will call anyone who disagrees even a little nasty names.
And umm, Heffalump_and_Roo? You might as well close your new thread down. Thorny Locust and Mr Dibble have spoken!
Good to know that if Hitler, after conquering Europe, had just kidnapped every Jewish baby and raised them as Christians the disappearance of European Jewry wouldn’t have been a genocide.
See Hitler there was a way to eliminate all the world’s Jews that some people would be fine with!
Heh.
Pot, Kettle.