It wasn’t unique, it wasn’t a “one off”. 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. Same as with abortions and “The only moral abortion is my abortion”.
Fundamentally, this is evidence of the failure to generalize learning (what learning is for), a grand failure of intelligence.
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.
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.
Edit: Really, the above comment gets up votes for alleging something I explicitly spoke out against in my first comment? Guess it’s correct what people say about .ml
removed by mod
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 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.
There were once 100 million Natives living on the two American continents.
Most estimates (and all recent ones) put that number around 50 mln, the vast majority of whom died from disease, rather similarly to how the black death from asia killed the majority of europe and the middle east two hundred years prior.
Did it enable colonialism? Yes. Was it meticulously planned? No.
This is genocide denial.
They were rounded up into camps, the US army brought the buffalo to near extinction to starve the natives, scalp hunting! It was systematic and deliberate.
There was a whole industry propped up by the military, church, and schools to kill them and take their land, remove their culture, take away their religion, enslave them, and constantly push them away. It was very much planned.
So the Holocaust didn’t do the same thing to Romas, queer folk, Black folk, etc? Only the Jewish folk?
So the unique thing about the Holocaust was the involvement of IBM and Bayer/IG Farben?
Ok yeah I can buy that.
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.
Okay so, this is a rhetoric problem.
This phrase here:
I disagree with the premise, the Holocaust was unique.
You lost the crowd immediately. The thrust of Walz’ position is that people should be more aware of the ubiquity of genocidal thinking, and in your first sentence, you put yourself in opposition to him.
Even though you agree with Walz later in spirit, the immediate impression is that you’re downplaying other genocides by over-fixating on the shock and horror of this one in particular, and it takes you way too long to clear up your position.
If you had phrased this as “added context” or “an additional fun fact” or “some ways in which the holocaust was unique,” it becomes much harder to disagree with you. Your audience isn’t primed immediately to be angry, and you beget much more charitability, at least from those who aren’t insane.
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!
No problem, yo!
And to be fair, communication is always two-way. It"s not like I don’t want the public to be more thoughtful in their disagreements.
Have a good one.
It’s funny that Walz is preaching nuance and critical thinking, and yet the people who purport to agree with him in this thread apparently can’t synthesize your point. The Holocaust is a stark reminder that genocide will not only continue, but will be improved and augmented by new technologies and ideologies. Like you said, though, that doesn’t make it worse than others. 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. Folks ITT probably have it in their heads that you agree that Tim Walz is an antisemite, but as it turns out, two things can be true. 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 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.
