Königsberg~~er~~

Now I'm hungry

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.

Terroristen die grundsätzlich nichts von Recht und Unrecht wissen wollen,

Schwierig, Terroristen wären laut Definition als nicht-rechtmäßige Kombatanten im Falle einer Gefangennahme nicht von der genfer Konvention geschützt. Sprich sie wären keine Kriegsgefangenen sondern würde eher so wie Spione behandelt, die ebenfalls keinen geschützten Kombatanten status erhalten.

Da also ihre bloße Definition sie vom Schutz der Konvention ausschließt verstehe ich schon warum man die Konvention als ganzes ignoriert, da sie ja auch keinerlei persönlichen Mehrwert davon haben.

Terror, ausgeübt durch anerkannte Kombatanten ist wiederum zwar laut Konventionen eine verbrecherische Handlung, aber die ausübenden wären unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen trotzdem von der Konvention geschützt. Beispielsweise hat sich der IS meistens in genau dieser Grauzone bewegt.

Edit: anderes Beispiel: die deutschen Soldaten die während der Ardennenoffensive hinter der Alliierten Front in amerikanischen Uniformen getarnt Kriegshandlungen begangen haben wären übrigens nicht geschützt gewesen

Isn't Fuentes one of the few guys who embraces the label?

Or do I just think that because he is one of those who doesn't dog whistle and is just saying.Nazi stuff openly?

Either way, that dude is super scary because he is not stupid, he knows exactly what games hes playing and he is better at it than for example Alex Jones.

Fortunately he is still too crass for regular people.

Gnnnhhhh ...engage! Sound of water splashing

We fucked very ironically

A little off topic but I've been listening to the Alex Jones depositions on the knowledge fight podcast (highly recommend) and that was kinda similar. Not in a cognitive test way, but seeing his fish gallop technique running into a wall is so satisfying.

For example the plaintiffs lawyer asks a question, Jones uses that as a jumping off point for one of his famous nonsense rants and they just let him ramble for 2 minutes and then the lawyer answers in a very calm manner - "Mr. Jones, that was not my question, my question was ..." Repeatedly until they got a straight answer, "Mr Jones I have all day to get the answers I need."

Once or twice the lawyer even interrupted him with "Babababab! Please just answer my question!" Or "What are you even talking about?" Jones was so caught in his show persona that he stood no chance of avoiding to answer unpleasant questions.

His dad was way more in control of the court room, giving yes or no answers, keeping it short, like someone who listens to his lawyers should do.

The scariest dude in the depositions was one of his editors, a nice sounding guy, who hated Alex Jones, knew that what they were doing was harmful bullshit but continued to do it for years without caring about the impact. The mundanity of evil.