Israel

[Hoover Attack]

If I'd lost someone to one of the differing varieties of AIDS, I wouldn't get upset and demand you were sacked from your non-job for mentioning people who had died from other diseases on AIDS Remembrance day.

[Dunners]

differing varieties of AIDS

Good or bad?

[Dunners]

^Also, this kind of response frames things as an overreaction without any curiosity as to the provenance or motivation of the initial intent to blur the definition.

[CEB]

If I'd lost someone to one of the differing varieties of AIDS, I wouldn't get upset and demand you were sacked from your non-job for mentioning people who had died from other diseases on AIDS Remembrance day.

I suspect that if public figures were opining about Covid or Ebola on World AIDS day, AIDS charities and organisations would have something to say about it being legitimate to not simply throw all disease related deaths together.


The point is though that you and PJ were responding to this story as if the issue was just about referring to genocides, and then as if the issue was that some people think some genocides don’t rank highly enough to be OK to mention, when the issue actually seems to be about suggesting that the meaning of an existing thing should be expanded - to which people invested in the original thing can legitimately disagree, and make a case that attempting to expand the scope of the thing is inappropriate/unacceptable

[Currywurst and Chips]

It’s a very “All lives matter” approach to take to bring up other historical tragedies on Holocaust Memorial Day then gaslight and say “Well don’t they matter too” when it’s pointed out

[Dunners]

You know how the western liberal left, its values, and the mechanisms and networks on which it exists, was captured and exploited by bad-faith actors in the trans ideology movement...

[Proposition Joe]

If I'd lost someone to one of the differing varieties of AIDS, I wouldn't get upset and demand you were sacked from your non-job for mentioning people who had died from other diseases on AIDS Remembrance day.

I suspect that if public figures were opining about Covid or Ebola on World AIDS day, AIDS charities and organisations would have something to say about it being legitimate to not simply throw all disease related deaths together.


The point is though that you and PJ were responding to this story as if the issue was just about referring to genocides, and then as if the issue was that some people think some genocides don’t rank highly enough to be OK to mention, when the issue actually seems to be about suggesting that the meaning of an existing thing should be expanded - to which people invested in the original thing can legitimately disagree, and make a case that attempting to expand the scope of the thing is inappropriate/unacceptable

I get the point you're trying to make but I think you're rewriting the documented word again, JUST LIKE IN 1984. I think reference to the Holocaust should be fairly sacrosanct - probably a better word I could use - and is at risk of being diluted somewhat. 'Genocide' is a different thing and that's the word that Adz seemed to be picking up on here.

[Long slender neck]

Its using the Holocaust for political point scoring. Its rubbing their noses in it. An insult. Using their greatest tragedy against them. Shameful.

[Hoover Attack]

^Also, this kind of response frames things as an overreaction without any curiosity as to the provenance or motivation of the initial intent to blur the definition.

It is an over reaction.

People are getting more upset about others remembering the wrong dead people than they are people getting brutally murdered today.

[Hoover Attack]

It’s a very “All lives matter” approach to take to bring up other historical tragedies on Holocaust Memorial Day then gaslight and say “Well don’t they matter too” when it’s pointed out

It’s literally nothing like the gammons who spout ‘All Lives Matter’.

[CEB]

If I'd lost someone to one of the differing varieties of AIDS, I wouldn't get upset and demand you were sacked from your non-job for mentioning people who had died from other diseases on AIDS Remembrance day.

I suspect that if public figures were opining about Covid or Ebola on World AIDS day, AIDS charities and organisations would have something to say about it being legitimate to not simply throw all disease related deaths together.


The point is though that you and PJ were responding to this story as if the issue was just about referring to genocides, and then as if the issue was that some people think some genocides don’t rank highly enough to be OK to mention, when the issue actually seems to be about suggesting that the meaning of an existing thing should be expanded - to which people invested in the original thing can legitimately disagree, and make a case that attempting to expand the scope of the thing is inappropriate/unacceptable

I get the point you're trying to make but I think you're rewriting the documented word again, JUST LIKE IN 1984. I think reference to the Holocaust should be fairly sacrosanct - probably a better word I could use - and is at risk of being diluted somewhat. 'Genocide' is a different thing and that's the word that Adz seemed to be picking up on here.

But my understanding of it is that in a communication ostensibly about holocaust Memorial Day, she specifically sought to say “let’s also make sure we talk about THIS”, which isn’t a good example of keeping the holocaust sacrosanct

[CEB]

It’s a very “All lives matter” approach to take to bring up other historical tragedies on Holocaust Memorial Day then gaslight and say “Well don’t they matter too” when it’s pointed out

It’s literally nothing like the gammons who spout ‘All Lives Matter’.

The dynamic of taking an existing cause/concept specifically related to one group, and suggesting that when we discuss that cause/concept we should also discuss the importance of other causes and concepts is an exact equivalent in terms of the dynamics. The only difference is the degree to which you might believe it’s legitimate to expand the scope of what should be “remembered” on that day.

[Dunners]

^Also, this kind of response frames things as an overreaction without any curiosity as to the provenance or motivation of the initial intent to blur the definition.

It is an over reaction.

People are getting more upset about others remembering the wrong dead people than they are people getting brutally murdered today.

I'm not debating whether it is an overreaction.

If I was to be cynical, I could postulate that bad-faith actors have deliberately formulated and propagated the issue amongst the wider good-faith movement with the intention of generating the overreaction. Israel has walked into one trap after another so far, so this could be just another.

[CEB]

I’m not even saying you’re necessarily wrong to do that - or that it’s inherently wrong to expand the scope of what’s included in concepts - it’s just, let’s not be disingenuous about it.
Like, if the point is “holocaust memorial day unduly focuses on one atrocity, and it’s high time that this specific day was about all the atrocities, not just the one that was perpetrated on millions of Jews during world war 2”, then make that argument rather than existing it when people are implying it

[Rich Tea Wellin]

It’s a very “All lives matter” approach to take to bring up other historical tragedies on Holocaust Memorial Day then gaslight and say “Well don’t they matter too” when it’s pointed out

Gaslight not the best word to use, in the context

[Proposition Joe]

I suspect that if public figures were opining about Covid or Ebola on World AIDS day, AIDS charities and organisations would have something to say about it being legitimate to not simply throw all disease related deaths together.


The point is though that you and PJ were responding to this story as if the issue was just about referring to genocides, and then as if the issue was that some people think some genocides don’t rank highly enough to be OK to mention, when the issue actually seems to be about suggesting that the meaning of an existing thing should be expanded - to which people invested in the original thing can legitimately disagree, and make a case that attempting to expand the scope of the thing is inappropriate/unacceptable

I get the point you're trying to make but I think you're rewriting the documented word again, JUST LIKE IN 1984. I think reference to the Holocaust should be fairly sacrosanct - probably a better word I could use - and is at risk of being diluted somewhat. 'Genocide' is a different thing and that's the word that Adz seemed to be picking up on here.

But my understanding of it is that in a communication ostensibly about holocaust Memorial Day, she specifically sought to say “let’s also make sure we talk about THIS”, which isn’t a good example of keeping the holocaust sacrosanct

I wasn't even talking about Osamor or HMD. In my view, it really wouldn't hurt to just hold one's tongue for 24 hours and not "but what about...?" during a day to mark that specific thing. If nothing else, it's definitely a lack of judgement.

[Hoover Attack]

Isn't this the ideal time to mention the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians by the Israeli state?

[Hoover Attack]

It’s a very “All lives matter” approach to take to bring up other historical tragedies on Holocaust Memorial Day then gaslight and say “Well don’t they matter too” when it’s pointed out

It’s literally nothing like the gammons who spout ‘All Lives Matter’.

The dynamic of taking an existing cause/concept specifically related to one group, and suggesting that when we discuss that cause/concept we should also discuss the importance of other causes and concepts is an exact equivalent in terms of the dynamics. The only difference is the degree to which you might believe it’s legitimate to expand the scope of what should be “remembered” on that day.

Racist gammons spouting 'What about us white folk, why don't we matter?' is nothing like remembering all acts of genocide.

[faldO]

Isn't this the ideal time to mention the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians by the Israeli state?

Mentioning it and continually repeating it doesn't mean there is one.

[Proposition Joe]

Isn't this the ideal time to mention the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians by the Israeli state?

Isn't this conflating 'Israel' with 'Jews'?

[Long slender neck]

In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group.

Its quite a broad definition

[CEB]

It’s literally nothing like the gammons who spout ‘All Lives Matter’.

The dynamic of taking an existing cause/concept specifically related to one group, and suggesting that when we discuss that cause/concept we should also discuss the importance of other causes and concepts is an exact equivalent in terms of the dynamics. The only difference is the degree to which you might believe it’s legitimate to expand the scope of what should be “remembered” on that day.

Racist gammons spouting 'What about us white folk, why don't we matter?' is nothing like remembering all acts of genocide.

I think the post of mine you quoted functions as the argument against your post. “It’s nothing like” may well be true in terms of the legitimacy of the act of trying to bring other causes into an existing one, but both instances are, demonstrably, instances of attempting to add extra causes or considerations to an existing cause, the proponents of which might object to.

[Dunners]

In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group.

Its quite a broad definition

It will come down to what degree "intent" is applicable and provable. Any war fought in a densely populated region will result in human collateral. The only way to avoid the current civilian causalities would be for Israel not to have retaliated with military force to the Oct 7 attacks.

Despite how it's been reported in certain quarters, even the ICJ didn't feel that the evidence submitted by South Africa was sufficient to conclude a ruling on genocide. Instead the ruling can be summarised as "carry on Israel, but be careful."

[Proposition Joe]

Since the originals are all dead, who'd star in Carry on Israel? Used to be a Shane Richie type gig but not seen him in a while.

[BoniO]

In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group.

Its quite a broad definition

The only way to avoid the current civilian causalities would be for Israel not to have retaliated with military force to the Oct 7 attacks.

That is utter and complete rubbish. Retaliation was/is possible without the need for air and missile strikes on such a scale. This is what much of the World has called for. A much more precise attack on Hamas with a much lower loss of civilian life.