You better not smoke it with 20+ open wounds in your mouth…

I understand that now, my phrasing was poor and I also didn’t make it clear that I was trying to engage with the comment and underline the missing nuance and not with the conversation about walz, although i was also missing some nuance in my comment I agree.

You lost the crowd immediately

Yeah going back I can see that most didn’t make it past the first two sentences, that is on me. I guess after the first answers I was just angry people were unwilling to engage with the content of my comment, so I wasn’t able to see my own shortcomings without you pointing me at them.

I appreciate the insight and the kindness of encouraging me to reflect that instead of just piling on. Thank you!

I agree with all that you said.

I think the issue you’re running into is that the point here is Walz is being subjected to ad hominem to distract from a broader discussion on the nature of genocide because such discussions are bad for Israel and their conservative benefactors in the US.

Ah yeah that makes sense, your rephrasing made me understand the issue.

The Holocaust is unique in a particular sense, but that is not what Walz is talking about; in the context he is speaking, the Holocaust is not unique. Essentially, the Holocaust, as a vivid and well-documented case study, can and should be a window into the broader history of genocide and human rights abuse.

I understand, I was trying to point out that nuance is important in that instance, the uniqueness of the event is a good cautionary tale and to diminish that into a too broad of a “genocide blanket” would take away from the unique problems genocide projects into our modern world.

Similar to how antisemitism is a form of racism but in its “design” it is still a unique form of racism.

Although my attempt was way less eloquent than yours.

Thank you, that was the first comment that actually engaged with what I tried to say.

Sure whatever you want to believe, I gave up on this thread having any sort of constructive argument or insight. Didn’t even have to be valuable insight, but there’s nothing here to be found.

Does all that make it a quantifier, was this genocide more “genocidy” then others?

No, just that the way it was carried out was unique, no more no less, but to deny that is just revisionism.

Does all that make it a quantifier, was this genocide more “genocidy” then others?

No, just that the way it was carried out was unique, no more no less, but to deny that is just revisionism.

I have pointed at exactly this sort of quantifier as being wrong already in my original comment.

It wasn’t unique, it wasn’t a “one off”.

I disagree with the premise, the Holocaust was unique. It was unique in its effectiveness, it was a meticulously planned machinery of death the world has never seen before or after. The Jews weren’t just killed where they could be found, they were caught, cataloged, transported, sorted and then murdered as effectively as possible. Death on a well planned assembly line.

Does all that make it a quantifier, was this genocide more “genocidy” then others?

No, just that the way it was carried out was unique, no more no less, but to deny that is just revisionism.

The unique framing appeals to conservatives as it feeds into exceptionalism and impunity. “We’re special!” It’s those people who only care about stuff when it happens to them.

That’s just a disgusting take just someone very privileged is able to have.