• brain_in_a_box [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    34 countries and the EU consider the Holodomor (check your spelling btw) a genocide.

    Interesting; and when did they make this entirely non-political determination?

    Also, that leaves 161 countries that don’t consider it a genocide. Oh, but let me guess: us-foreign-policy

    I can find… well, you, and nothing else claiming the dust bowl is a genocide.

    I didn’t realize that whether something was a genocide or not was decided by vote.

    • paholg@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not not a vote. It’s a classification; they tend to not have perfect clear boundaries, and so one goes with the prevailing opinion of experts.

      But let’s forget the term “genocide”. In the USSR, millions of people were intentionally killed for no good reason. That’s fucked.

      • brain_in_a_box [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not not a vote. It’s a classification; they tend to not have perfect clear boundaries, and so one goes with the prevailing opinion of experts.

        Which you didn’t do, you instead tried to act like the votes of white European countries were the determinants.

        But let’s forget the term “genocide”.

        No, you used it, stand by it.

        • paholg@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I do stand by it. But it’s not an interesting discussion for me to just go back and forth on a definition.

          I’m trying to understand if we can agree on basic facts. I suspect that we cannot, which means there’s not much point in having any discussion. But I’m open to the chance that we can.

          • brain_in_a_box [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I do stand by it.

            Then do so, don’t try and equivocate.

            But it’s not an interesting discussion for me to just go back and forth on a definition.

            We were not arguing about definitions.

            I’m trying to understand if we can agree on basic facts.

            Sure, but don’t expect me to honor a double standard.

            • paholg@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I have no idea what you’re on about or why I’ve humored you for so long. Have a good life.

              • brain_in_a_box [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” ― Jean-Paul Sartre