17 million vs 1 million

[Heloin]

Its completely unfathomable to people that MAYBE by some metrics, the Holocaust was NOT at the very very top?

This is going too far?

It's going to far because it's a falsehood that edges close to apologism.

Its unfathomable to people that MAYBE some people REFUSE to betray their friends and family and 1 million people in the present just to reverse the Holocaust?

No that's understandable. You don't seem to understand the reverse.

Oh I'm "in the company of some people I don't want to be associated with now"... "OH you know, if you said this out loud you'll lose your job, be attacked by angry mobs, and ostracised..." "OH you are a Holocaust apologist" "Oh you're in the same company as anti-vaax people now"

If anything, I'm seeing a lot of close-mindedness

Again, you seem to equate the fact of the Holocaust probably being one of the largest genocides as meaning that no other genocide matters which no one has said but you.

[Infected Mushroom]

If someone merely says "hey you know, the Holocaust was one of several crimes against humanity, it is not necessarily the MOST destructive on this list" and then the person knee-jerk responds with:

"OH SO YOU ARE A HOLOCAUST APOLOGIST"

I would say, that kind of conduct DOES cross into SJW territory

Otherwise, not necessarily

For the most part, that's the kind of intellectual rigor you can expect when discussing this topic with any alternative perspective (which is why I generally stay away from involving these things in my threads)

Let us all be clear that you have not simply taken the position that the Holocaust was not necessarily the worst crime ever, you have been arguing that you don't care about the Holocaust because it happened in the past, and you have been arguing that it would be wrong to kill Hitler since he did not wrong you personally, you have ignorantly repeated Holocaust denier talking points, and you have set this thread up so that you can say that anyone who does want to prevent the Holocaust is some kind of traitor with no loyalty. You are attacking the people who want the Holocaust not to have happened.

"HOLOCAUST DENIER TALKING POINTS"

OH MY GOD

You're doing it again

OH MY GOD

[Infected Mushroom]

Its completely unfathomable to people that MAYBE by some metrics, the Holocaust was NOT at the very very top?

This is going too far?

Its unfathomable to people that MAYBE some people REFUSE to betray their friends and family and 1 million people in the present just to reverse the Holocaust?

Oh I'm "in the company of some people I don't want to be associated with now"... "OH you know, if you said this out loud you'll lose your job, be attacked by angry mobs, and ostracised..." "OH you are a Holocaust apologist" "Oh you're in the same company as anti-vaax people now"

If anything, I'm seeing a lot of close-mindedness

I’m confused, I thought this scenario was about stopping the Holocaust, not any other genocides.

I'm lashing out against the stereotypically abhorrent debating tactics that the people in the ~25% percent of the polls have been resorting to which is to take every single one of my quotes out of context or to exaggerate everything that's been said and then scream out things like: "Holocaust Denier! Holocaust Apologist! WATCH YOUR COMPANY! YOURE GONNA HAVE BAD FRIENDS!"

Apparently if someone says "Hey, there are other crimes against humanity that could give the Holocaust a run for its money so the Holocaust is not NECESSARILY NUMBER ONE in the absolutely most evil category..."

that person is attached with 1,000 other Necessarily Implied negative labels

[The Blaatschapen]

Its completely unfathomable to people that MAYBE by some metrics, the Holocaust was NOT at the very very top?

This is going too far?

Its unfathomable to people that MAYBE some people REFUSE to betray their friends and family and 1 million people in the present just to reverse the Holocaust?

Oh I'm "in the company of some people I don't want to be associated with now"... "OH you know, if you said this out loud you'll lose your job, be attacked by angry mobs, and ostracised..." "OH you are a Holocaust apologist" "Oh you're in the same company as anti-vaax people now"

If anything, I'm seeing a lot of close-mindedness

You can compile a list of atrocities, explain the metrics and then see how the holocaust ranks up.

Yes, there are a few other atrocities which are pretty bad too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor comes to mind.

However, I'll put my money out there that the Holocaust is a top 10 one in terms of both death count and ruthlessness.

[Alvecia]

I’m confused, I thought this scenario was about stopping the Holocaust, not any other genocides.

I'm lashing out against the stereotypically abhorrent debating tactics that the people in the ~25% percent of the polls have been resorting to which is to take every single one of my quotes out of context or to exaggerate everything that's been said and then scream out things like: "Holocaust Denier! Holocaust Apologist! WATCH YOUR COMPANY! YOURE GONNA HAVE BAD FRIENDS!"

Apparently if someone says "Hey, there are other crimes against humanity that could give the Holocaust a run for its money so the Holocaust is not NECESSARILY NUMBER ONE in the absolutely most evil category..."

that person is attached with 1,000 other Necessarily Implied negative labels

Why even bring up other genocides if they’re not relevant to the OP though?

[Caracasus]

You set the tone for the whole "anyone who has an emotional reaction to the holocaust is a SJW and can be ignored" in your opening post....

I say this unironically:

GO BACK AND READ THE OP. LIKE WORD FOR WORD.

WHERE THE FUCK DID I SAY THAT?

You're doing it again.

I said what WOULD YOU DO IF an SJW (a hypothetical one) came up to you and asked you a confrontational question... not what you claim I said I said

This once again demonstrates this topic must be avoided in the future because people love to jump all over the place and attack before reading carefully

Nope, we've read carefully. In including the SJW bit in your opening statement, and using the idea that the holocaust must be stopped as a "SJW " talking point you're setting up your opponents as emotionally driven SJW's - in this case your own emotionally driven and irrational argument that the lives of your family and one million should be prioritized over those of the victims of the holocaust. That's what you've done - anyone can look back over the first few pages and read that for themselves.

Then you've gone out of your way to attempt to diminish the effects and severity of the holocaust - again, anyone can go back and see where you've done that - to the extent that you were claiming that being gassed "isn't as bad" as other methods of execution - removing one element from its entire context of state sponsored extermination. Again, anyone can go back and read that.

This could be attributed to a lack of knowledge, but when loads of people have pointed out this is a classic holocaust apologist tactic, and have pointed out the holocast's horrors you've continued to double down on it. I'm not left with much else but to conclude that you probably hold those views as well yourself.

[Infected Mushroom]

I'm lashing out against the stereotypically abhorrent debating tactics that the people in the ~25% percent of the polls have been resorting to which is to take every single one of my quotes out of context or to exaggerate everything that's been said and then scream out things like: "Holocaust Denier! Holocaust Apologist! WATCH YOUR COMPANY! YOURE GONNA HAVE BAD FRIENDS!"

Apparently if someone says "Hey, there are other crimes against humanity that could give the Holocaust a run for its money so the Holocaust is not NECESSARILY NUMBER ONE in the absolutely most evil category..."

that person is attached with 1,000 other Necessarily Implied negative labels

Why even bring up other genocides if they’re not relevant to the OP though?

You can blame it on this, a page 3 out of the blue random attack on me about how it was "obvious" I did not visit the concentration camps and how "oh my god how could you" suggest that there could be worse things than the Holocaust:

I fully understand that Hollywood has tried to teach us that the Holocaust was a unique and supreme evil; but its time someone said, "there could be worse things, we should appreciate what we do have now"

Maybe because the Holocaust IS the most evil thing in living memory that a part of the human race has done.

Have you visited the concentration camps? I feel like I have asked you this question before, but I feel the need to ask you again.

That's how it started

discussion of the Holocaust as the absolute worst or near absolute worst could have been averted

...

Typical abhorrent debate tactic:

"OH YOU ARE CHALLENGING THE HOLOCAUST'S STATUS AS THE WORST????? Well

OBVIOUSLY you've never visited the camps"

[The Free Joy State]

I’m confused, I thought this scenario was about stopping the Holocaust, not any other genocides.

I'm lashing out against the stereotypically abhorrent debating tactics that the people in the ~25% percent of the polls have been resorting to which is to take every single one of my quotes out of context or to exaggerate everything that's been said and then scream out things like: "Holocaust Denier! Holocaust Apologist! WATCH YOUR COMPANY! YOURE GONNA HAVE BAD FRIENDS!"

Apparently if someone says "Hey, there are other crimes against humanity that could give the Holocaust a run for its money so the Holocaust is not NECESSARILY NUMBER ONE in the absolutely most evil category..."

that person is attached with 1,000 other Necessarily Implied negative labels

No-one here has argued that there were no other genocides or no other bad genocides. But this thread was set up to debate the Holocaust. The question -- the only relevant question -- is would we stop that one genocide (the Holocaust).

Your arguments, however, have included that all the people in the Holocaust are already dead, that it's in the past (so why do we care), have included attempting to make anyone who may choose to change history guilty for doing so (because of loyalty), have included repeated insistances that those who agree with you are "correct" and have featured attacks on respondents who disagree as "brainwashed" and "SJWs".

It's all that -- not the idea that there are other genocides that should be taught too -- that people object too.

If you'd stated that the Holocaust was a horrific thing that should never have happened but said that you wished kids also learned about Rwanda, the Armenian genocides and so on you would not have got this reaction.

[Heloin]

I’m confused, I thought this scenario was about stopping the Holocaust, not any other genocides.

I'm lashing out against the stereotypically abhorrent debating tactics that the people in the ~25% percent of the polls have been resorting to which is to take every single one of my quotes out of context or to exaggerate everything that's been said and then scream out things like: "Holocaust Denier! Holocaust Apologist! WATCH YOUR COMPANY! YOURE GONNA HAVE BAD FRIENDS!"

Apparently if someone says "Hey, there are other crimes against humanity that could give the Holocaust a run for its money so the Holocaust is not NECESSARILY NUMBER ONE in the absolutely most evil category..."

that person is attached with 1,000 other Necessarily Implied negative labels

If you're the one attacking people for saying they have a differing opinion, and people who have the same opinion as you, then maybe you're in the wrong.

[The Blaatschapen]

I'm lashing out against the stereotypically abhorrent debating tactics that the people in the ~25% percent of the polls have been resorting to which is to take every single one of my quotes out of context or to exaggerate everything that's been said and then scream out things like: "Holocaust Denier! Holocaust Apologist! WATCH YOUR COMPANY! YOURE GONNA HAVE BAD FRIENDS!"

Apparently if someone says "Hey, there are other crimes against humanity that could give the Holocaust a run for its money so the Holocaust is not NECESSARILY NUMBER ONE in the absolutely most evil category..."

that person is attached with 1,000 other Necessarily Implied negative labels

No-one here has argued that there were no other genocides or no other bad genocides. But this thread was set up to debate the Holocaust.

Your arguments, however, have included that all the people in the Holocaust are already dead, that it's in the past (so why do we care), have included attempting to make anyone who may choose to change history guilty for doing so (because of loyalty), have included repeated insistances that those who agree with you are "correct" and have featured attacks on respondents who disagree as "brainwashed" and "SJWs".

It's all that -- not the idea that there are other genocides that should be taught too -- that people object too.

If you'd admitted that the Holocaust was a horrific thing that should never have happened but said that you wished kids also learned about Rwanda, the Armenian genocides and so on you would not have got this reaction.

But I guess it's easier to feel persecuted?

And this is not even real persecution.

Actual persecution took, for example, place during the Holocaust.

[Heloin]

Its completely unfathomable to people that MAYBE by some metrics, the Holocaust was NOT at the very very top?

This is going too far?

Its unfathomable to people that MAYBE some people REFUSE to betray their friends and family and 1 million people in the present just to reverse the Holocaust?

Oh I'm "in the company of some people I don't want to be associated with now"... "OH you know, if you said this out loud you'll lose your job, be attacked by angry mobs, and ostracised..." "OH you are a Holocaust apologist" "Oh you're in the same company as anti-vaax people now"

If anything, I'm seeing a lot of close-mindedness

You can compile a list of atrocities, explain the metrics and then see how the holocaust ranks up.

Yes, there are a few other atrocities which are pretty bad too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor comes to mind.

However, I'll put my money out there that the Holocaust is a top 10 one in terms of both death count and ruthlessness.

I hate that I have to bring up a list, which shouldn't change the fact that any genocide is awful. But yes, the Holocaust is the worst.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_g ... death_toll

[Ihaveosteoperosis]

6 million is a smaller number so i'll pick 1 million

[Infected Mushroom]

I say this unironically:

GO BACK AND READ THE OP. LIKE WORD FOR WORD.

WHERE THE FUCK DID I SAY THAT?

You're doing it again.

I said what WOULD YOU DO IF an SJW (a hypothetical one) came up to you and asked you a confrontational question... not what you claim I said I said

This once again demonstrates this topic must be avoided in the future because people love to jump all over the place and attack before reading carefully

Nope, we've read carefully. In including the SJW bit in your opening statement, and using the idea that the holocaust must be stopped as a "SJW " talking point you're setting up your opponents as emotionally driven SJW's - in this case your own emotionally driven and irrational argument that the lives of your family and one million should be prioritized over those of the victims of the holocaust. That's what you've done - anyone can look back over the first few pages and read that for themselves.

Then you've gone out of your way to attempt to diminish the effects and severity of the holocaust - again, anyone can go back and see where you've done that - to the extent that you were claiming that being gassed "isn't as bad" as other methods of execution - removing one element from its entire context of state sponsored extermination. Again, anyone can go back and read that.

This could be attributed to a lack of knowledge, but when loads of people have pointed out this is a classic holocaust apologist tactic, and have pointed out the holocast's horrors you've continued to double down on it. I'm not left with much else but to conclude that you probably hold those views as well yourself.

This bolded paragraph is you 1,000% outrageously editorialising and reading way beyond what is actually written

the word "SJW" appears ONCE in the OP and it references a discussion point, a hypothetical SJW telling you X and how you would respond

The claim that anyone who opposes me is automatically an SJW does not appear. A statement calling most of the posters an SJW does not appear. The first paragraphs of the OP criticise the ease with which some people reach the conclusion that they would time travel and kill Hitler... but it does NOT do the following:

1. Call such people SJWs
2. Call everyone who opposes me SJWs who do that
3. Call for anyone to be ignored

This is what I mean when I say, your tactics of debating are extremely unfair and involve making leaps of logic and strawmannirg that are quite frankly, outrageous

Then you've gone out of your way to attempt to diminish the effects and severity of the holocaust - again, anyone can go back and see where you've done that - to the extent that you were claiming that being gassed "isn't as bad" as other methods of execution - removing one element from its entire context of state sponsored extermination. Again, anyone can go back and read that.

This could be attributed to a lack of knowledge, but when loads of people have pointed out this is a classic holocaust apologist tactic, and have pointed out the holocast's horrors you've continued to double down on it. I'm not left with much else but to conclude that you probably hold those views as well yourself.

I have not gone out of my way to "diminish" the Holocaust. I've only stated that its not INDISPUTABLY at the very very top of the worst things to happen to humanity, that similarly evil things have been done on a comparable if not greater scale depending on WHAT metrics and WHAT definitions you use.

I've only been forced to "double down" on points when attacked out of the blue about broader points I've never made

and quite frankly, whenever someone starts opening fire by labelling me a "Holocaust denier/apologist" or starts to make threats about "what kind of company I'm going to end up with if I pursue this line of argument" or "hypothetical threats of ostracisation and mob violence against my person..." I don't take it too kindly and I'm inclined to double down on defending against the points I HAVE MADE

(but of course, said attackers will keep assuming I am defending an imaginary straw man)

[Imperator Seven]

Wait, people seriously see good in the holocaust? I'm torn on believing that it's a joke or if people actually believe this.

[The Free Joy State]

No-one here has argued that there were no other genocides or no other bad genocides. But this thread was set up to debate the Holocaust.

Your arguments, however, have included that all the people in the Holocaust are already dead, that it's in the past (so why do we care), have included attempting to make anyone who may choose to change history guilty for doing so (because of loyalty), have included repeated insistances that those who agree with you are "correct" and have featured attacks on respondents who disagree as "brainwashed" and "SJWs".

It's all that -- not the idea that there are other genocides that should be taught too -- that people object too.

If you'd admitted that the Holocaust was a horrific thing that should never have happened but said that you wished kids also learned about Rwanda, the Armenian genocides and so on you would not have got this reaction.

But I guess it's easier to feel persecuted?

And this is not even real persecution.

Actual persecution took, for example, place during the Holocaust.

This is true.

You can compile a list of atrocities, explain the metrics and then see how the holocaust ranks up.

Yes, there are a few other atrocities which are pretty bad too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor comes to mind.

However, I'll put my money out there that the Holocaust is a top 10 one in terms of both death count and ruthlessness.

I hate that I have to bring up a list, which shouldn't change the fact that any genocide is awful. But yes, the Holocaust is the worst.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_g ... death_toll

Seeing the list all laid out like that is so sad.

Though, I agree that we shouldn't "compare" genocides. Genocide is horrible by its very nature.

[Alvecia]

6 million is a smaller number so i'll pick 1 million

Wait.....

[Infected Mushroom]

I'm lashing out against the stereotypically abhorrent debating tactics that the people in the ~25% percent of the polls have been resorting to which is to take every single one of my quotes out of context or to exaggerate everything that's been said and then scream out things like: "Holocaust Denier! Holocaust Apologist! WATCH YOUR COMPANY! YOURE GONNA HAVE BAD FRIENDS!"

Apparently if someone says "Hey, there are other crimes against humanity that could give the Holocaust a run for its money so the Holocaust is not NECESSARILY NUMBER ONE in the absolutely most evil category..."

that person is attached with 1,000 other Necessarily Implied negative labels

No-one here has argued that there were no other genocides or no other bad genocides. But this thread was set up to debate the Holocaust. The question -- the only relevant question -- is would we stop that one genocide (the Holocaust).

Your arguments, however, have included that all the people in the Holocaust are already dead, that it's in the past (so why do we care), have included attempting to make anyone who may choose to change history guilty for doing so (because of loyalty), have included repeated insistances that those who agree with you are "correct" and have featured attacks on respondents who disagree as "brainwashed" and "SJWs".

It's all that -- not the idea that there are other genocides that should be taught too -- that people object too.

If you'd stated that the Holocaust was a horrific thing that should never have happened but said that you wished kids also learned about Rwanda, the Armenian genocides and so on you would not have got this reaction.

The position that although the Holocaust has the highest kill count in a genocide, other events ("worse than the Holocaust" by some metrics) could be a greater evil than it (for example, the Great Leap Forward, the IJA's crimes in the Pacific, or the Stalinist purges etc) depending on WHAT metric you used and how you defined things...

For instance, maybe people very reasonably do not think the racial genocidal nature of the Holocaust makes it worse than some of the communist purges because the communist purges killed a much greater number is at least a tenable position. Similarly, one could list a number of absolutely terrifying things that other groups have pulled in mass murder of civilians campaigns that make you question whether the Holocaust truly entailed the largest number of absolutely inhumane torture.

we've been taught that the Holocaust is Number One in the most evil things to have happened, I'm saying "not necessarily..." It depends on what you look at and whether or not you think numbers killed in a genocide is what is the most important.

is not in any capacity, what you've represented above

[Caracasus]

Nope, we've read carefully. In including the SJW bit in your opening statement, and using the idea that the holocaust must be stopped as a "SJW " talking point you're setting up your opponents as emotionally driven SJW's - in this case your own emotionally driven and irrational argument that the lives of your family and one million should be prioritized over those of the victims of the holocaust. That's what you've done - anyone can look back over the first few pages and read that for themselves.

Then you've gone out of your way to attempt to diminish the effects and severity of the holocaust - again, anyone can go back and see where you've done that - to the extent that you were claiming that being gassed "isn't as bad" as other methods of execution - removing one element from its entire context of state sponsored extermination. Again, anyone can go back and read that.

This could be attributed to a lack of knowledge, but when loads of people have pointed out this is a classic holocaust apologist tactic, and have pointed out the holocast's horrors you've continued to double down on it. I'm not left with much else but to conclude that you probably hold those views as well yourself.

This bolded paragraph is you 1,000% outrageously editorialising and reading way beyond what is actually written

the word "SJW" appears ONCE in the OP and it references a discussion point, a hypothetical SJW telling you X and how you would respond

The claim that anyone who opposes me is automatically an SJW does not appear. A statement calling most of the posters an SJW does not appear. The first paragraphs of the OP criticise the ease with which some people reach the conclusion that they would time travel and kill Hitler... but it does NOT do the following:

1. Call such people SJWs
2. Call everyone who opposes me SJWs who do that
3. Call for anyone to be ignored

This is what I mean when I say, your tactics of debating are extremely unfair and involve making leaps of logic and strawmannirg that are quite frankly, outrageous

Then you've gone out of your way to attempt to diminish the effects and severity of the holocaust - again, anyone can go back and see where you've done that - to the extent that you were claiming that being gassed "isn't as bad" as other methods of execution - removing one element from its entire context of state sponsored extermination. Again, anyone can go back and read that.

This could be attributed to a lack of knowledge, but when loads of people have pointed out this is a classic holocaust apologist tactic, and have pointed out the holocast's horrors you've continued to double down on it. I'm not left with much else but to conclude that you probably hold those views as well yourself.

I have not gone out of my way to "diminish" the Holocaust. I've only stated that its not INDISPUTABLY at the very very top of the worst things to happen to humanity, that similarly evil things have been done on a comparable if not greater scale depending on WHAT metrics and WHAT definitions you use.

I've only been forced to "double down" on points when attacked out of the blue about broader points I've never made

and quite frankly, whenever someone starts opening fire by labelling me a "Holocaust denier/apologist" or starts to make threats about "what kind of company I'm going to end up with if I pursue this line of argument" or "hypothetical threats of ostracisation and mob violence against my person..." I don't take it too kindly and I'm inclined to double down on defending against the points I HAVE MADE

(but of course, said attackers will keep assuming I am defending an imaginary straw man)

We can infer from the fact you chose an SJW and that you've then gone on to use this imaginary boogeyman of the far right as a category to associate those who disagree with you, that your intention was to deride those who felt that the other option (saving the victims of the holocaust) as emotionally driven and broadly wrong.

You've pretty much done points 1-3 in the first few pages:

In your own words:

I like to be victimised by misguided politically correct SJW mobs (when I know that I chose right); it makes me feel like a martyr

I sacrificed everything to protect my friends and my family and 1 million people from THIS generation (which is what should matters); I refused to change the past because I have the humility to know that its not a risk I'm prepared to take

the fact that others feel that I've turned their worlds upside down because I said "1 million people from the present and who I know matter more to me than 6 million Jews" and acted accordingly... and feel the need to try and destroy me by causing my economic, social, and physical harm shows to me that I've won

I'd be 100% satisfied if that's how I go down

at least they'd be in a position to possibly accept it

if the crowds had their way, I was suppose to sacrifice their lives for 6 million people from the 1940s

Where did I say I went around telling people I didn't stop the Holocaust?

Ifreann raised a situation where people somehow found out and came to attack me for my choice in the OP

the OP doesn't say how that one SJW found out, it simply asks you what you would say in response to a hypothetical comment of a certain nature

no I would say the threshold is where there is a certain level of entitlement that everyone should be prepared to sacrifice anything and everything and other people if it means that certain standards/outcomes of political correctness are ensured (regardless of cost benefit analysis either individually or society-wide)

"Oh you MUST sacrifice all of your friends and family members to stop the Holocaust. If you don't do that, then you have no Empathy. Period."

For instance, that is the type of attitude that is communicated by the hypothetical SJW in the OP

And for the holocaust (probably/possibly? unintentional apologia:

It isn't really. Other regimes have killed larger numbers of innocent people and have engaged in even worse experiments/torture on humans

I don't buy the whole "it was systematic and industrial and racial, therefore it's indisputably its own Highest Class of evil" argument

its not at the very top (nor of its own class) in anything whether you're looking at numbers of people killed, type of torture/experiments enacted, or racial hatred

However, its definitely the most well-known, well-documented, and notorious

the real numbers are either higher or lower than 6 million

I can tell you that there are far worse ways to die than being sent to a gas chamber; the only clear category where the Holocaust trumps absolutely everything else is in its excessively high public profile and extremely high interest by Western film-makers and writers

you're still not going to beat the numbers of communist regimes

and you're still going to get, overall more humane executions than what victims in the Asian theatre endured at the hands of the IJA

the real numbers are in dispute, and quite frankly, they are of no concern to me

I'll leave that debate to the historians

[Imperator Seven]

No-one here has argued that there were no other genocides or no other bad genocides. But this thread was set up to debate the Holocaust. The question -- the only relevant question -- is would we stop that one genocide (the Holocaust).

Your arguments, however, have included that all the people in the Holocaust are already dead, that it's in the past (so why do we care), have included attempting to make anyone who may choose to change history guilty for doing so (because of loyalty), have included repeated insistances that those who agree with you are "correct" and have featured attacks on respondents who disagree as "brainwashed" and "SJWs".

It's all that -- not the idea that there are other genocides that should be taught too -- that people object too.

If you'd stated that the Holocaust was a horrific thing that should never have happened but said that you wished kids also learned about Rwanda, the Armenian genocides and so on you would not have got this reaction.

The position that although the Holocaust has the highest kill count in a genocide, other events ("worse than the Holocaust" by some metrics) could be a greater evil than it (for example, the Great Leap Forward, the IJA's crimes in the Pacific, or the Stalinist purges etc) depending on WHAT metric you used and how you defined things...

For instance, maybe people very reasonably do not think the racial genocidal nature of the Holocaust makes it worse than some of the communist purges because the communist purges killed a much greater number is at least a tenable position. Similarly, one could list a number of absolutely terrifying things that other groups have pulled in mass murder of civilians campaigns that make you question whether the Holocaust truly entailed the largest number of absolutely inhumane torture.

we've been taught that the Holocaust is Number One in the most evil things to have happened, I'm saying "not necessarily..." It depends on what you look at and whether or not you think numbers killed in a genocide is what is the most important.

is not in any capacity, what you've represented above

I feel that this is an extremely touchy subject, and was bound to be quite "unpleasant" for you. Why not just leave it here?

[Infected Mushroom]

If someone came up to me and said: "The Great Leap Forward was worse than the Holocaust and it is Number One in the Most Evil Things Ever because the Holocaust killed 17 million while the GLF killed 20-200 million people"

I would say, "Okay, using that criteria, you may have a point"

...

If someone said "The Holocaust was Number One because even though other mass murder campaigns have killed more people and perhaps entailed just as much torture or more... the RACIAL nature of the persecution and the sheer destructive intent and the systematic way it was carried out makes it NUMBER ONE."

I'd say, "Okay, using a certain criteria, you may have a point"

...

In the same vein, if someone said, "Surely Number One is the IJA's actions in the Pacific because they killed millions of civilians and did unspeakably cruel things like cut out infants from mothers while everyone was alive in Nanking; they also performed tortuous experiments on a much larger scale..."

I'd say, "Okay, if you look at certain writers and certain criteria, you may have a point"

...

I'd even be open to an argument that the Rwandan Genocide, though its brutal simplistic nature of people wielding machetes and chasing you out to cut you up alive... deserves a spot near the top. Maybe for certain types of people, that is the ultimate nightmare and they think its Number One for these subjective substantive reasons..

...

I don't see why people have to be so close-minded in their argumentation to go... "Oh you DON'T think the Holocaust was the VERY WORST OF ALL THINGS?! THEN CLEAR SIR YOU ARE AN APOLOGIST/DENIER!"

[Imperator Seven]

I'm confused.

[Heloin]

No-one here has argued that there were no other genocides or no other bad genocides. But this thread was set up to debate the Holocaust. The question -- the only relevant question -- is would we stop that one genocide (the Holocaust).

Your arguments, however, have included that all the people in the Holocaust are already dead, that it's in the past (so why do we care), have included attempting to make anyone who may choose to change history guilty for doing so (because of loyalty), have included repeated insistances that those who agree with you are "correct" and have featured attacks on respondents who disagree as "brainwashed" and "SJWs".

It's all that -- not the idea that there are other genocides that should be taught too -- that people object too.

If you'd stated that the Holocaust was a horrific thing that should never have happened but said that you wished kids also learned about Rwanda, the Armenian genocides and so on you would not have got this reaction.

The position that although the Holocaust has the highest kill count in a genocide, other events ("worse than the Holocaust" by some metrics) could be a greater evil than it (for example, the Great Leap Forward, the IJA's crimes in the Pacific, or the Stalinist purges etc) depending on WHAT metric you used and how you defined things...

For instance, maybe people very reasonably do not think the racial genocidal nature of the Holocaust makes it worse than some of the communist purges because the communist purges killed a much greater number is at least a tenable position. Similarly, one could list a number of absolutely terrifying things that other groups have pulled in mass murder of civilians campaigns that make you question whether the Holocaust truly entailed the largest number of absolutely inhumane torture.

we've been taught that the Holocaust is Number One in the most evil things to have happened, I'm saying "not necessarily..." It depends on what you look at and whether or not you think numbers killed in a genocide is what is the most important.

is not in any capacity, what you've represented above

The problem is no one is downplaying the tragedy of the Holodomor, of the Great Leap Forward, or of Japanese war crimes. You however try to downplay the holocaust and that's what makes people react poorly. This whole thing is not people overreacting to nothing, it's you poorly choosing your words then doubling down when other people call you out on it.

[Infected Mushroom]

This bolded paragraph is you 1,000% outrageously editorialising and reading way beyond what is actually written

the word "SJW" appears ONCE in the OP and it references a discussion point, a hypothetical SJW telling you X and how you would respond

The claim that anyone who opposes me is automatically an SJW does not appear. A statement calling most of the posters an SJW does not appear. The first paragraphs of the OP criticise the ease with which some people reach the conclusion that they would time travel and kill Hitler... but it does NOT do the following:

1. Call such people SJWs
2. Call everyone who opposes me SJWs who do that
3. Call for anyone to be ignored

This is what I mean when I say, your tactics of debating are extremely unfair and involve making leaps of logic and strawmannirg that are quite frankly, outrageous



I have not gone out of my way to "diminish" the Holocaust. I've only stated that its not INDISPUTABLY at the very very top of the worst things to happen to humanity, that similarly evil things have been done on a comparable if not greater scale depending on WHAT metrics and WHAT definitions you use.

I've only been forced to "double down" on points when attacked out of the blue about broader points I've never made

and quite frankly, whenever someone starts opening fire by labelling me a "Holocaust denier/apologist" or starts to make threats about "what kind of company I'm going to end up with if I pursue this line of argument" or "hypothetical threats of ostracisation and mob violence against my person..." I don't take it too kindly and I'm inclined to double down on defending against the points I HAVE MADE

(but of course, said attackers will keep assuming I am defending an imaginary straw man)

We can infer from the fact you chose an SJW and that you've then gone on to use this imaginary boogeyman of the far right as a category to associate those who disagree with you, that your intention was to deride those who felt that the other option (saving the victims of the holocaust) as emotionally driven and broadly wrong.

You've pretty much done points 1-3 in the first few pages:

In your own words:

I like to be victimised by misguided politically correct SJW mobs (when I know that I chose right); it makes me feel like a martyr

I sacrificed everything to protect my friends and my family and 1 million people from THIS generation (which is what should matters); I refused to change the past because I have the humility to know that its not a risk I'm prepared to take

the fact that others feel that I've turned their worlds upside down because I said "1 million people from the present and who I know matter more to me than 6 million Jews" and acted accordingly... and feel the need to try and destroy me by causing my economic, social, and physical harm shows to me that I've won

I'd be 100% satisfied if that's how I go down

at least they'd be in a position to possibly accept it

if the crowds had their way, I was suppose to sacrifice their lives for 6 million people from the 1940s

Where did I say I went around telling people I didn't stop the Holocaust?

Ifreann raised a situation where people somehow found out and came to attack me for my choice in the OP

the OP doesn't say how that one SJW found out, it simply asks you what you would say in response to a hypothetical comment of a certain nature

no I would say the threshold is where there is a certain level of entitlement that everyone should be prepared to sacrifice anything and everything and other people if it means that certain standards/outcomes of political correctness are ensured (regardless of cost benefit analysis either individually or society-wide)

"Oh you MUST sacrifice all of your friends and family members to stop the Holocaust. If you don't do that, then you have no Empathy. Period."

For instance, that is the type of attitude that is communicated by the hypothetical SJW in the OP

And for the holocaust (probably/possibly? unintentional apologia:

It isn't really. Other regimes have killed larger numbers of innocent people and have engaged in even worse experiments/torture on humans

I don't buy the whole "it was systematic and industrial and racial, therefore it's indisputably its own Highest Class of evil" argument

its not at the very top (nor of its own class) in anything whether you're looking at numbers of people killed, type of torture/experiments enacted, or racial hatred

However, its definitely the most well-known, well-documented, and notorious

the real numbers are either higher or lower than 6 million

I can tell you that there are far worse ways to die than being sent to a gas chamber; the only clear category where the Holocaust trumps absolutely everything else is in its excessively high public profile and extremely high interest by Western film-makers and writers

you're still not going to beat the numbers of communist regimes

and you're still going to get, overall more humane executions than what victims in the Asian theatre endured at the hands of the IJA

the real numbers are in dispute, and quite frankly, they are of no concern to me

I'll leave that debate to the historians

I don't see how any of the above is "Holocaust apologia."

its saying, in a completely clinical fashion:

"
1. Hey its not COMPLETELY clear if the Holocaust is the WORST THING that humans have ever done. Some things, depending on who you ask and what you look at, could be worse (perhaps a lot of people or someone in some other event, had it worse than someone in a gas chamber).

2. I'm not here to get down into the nitty gritty of the numbers in the Holocaust, that is not what the thread is about"

Again...

That is not what Holocaust apologia looks like. What it looks like is:

"The Holocaust wasn't so terrible. It helped control the population in Europe. The _____s had it coming and a lot of criminals were eliminated."

^

THAT IS WHAT APOLOGIA LOOKS LIKE

What I have said it not apologia. It is not apologia to say, "MAYBE it was not the ABSOLUTE WORSE"

Apologia is where you say, "Oh you know what? It was totally justified."

...

And for the record let me show you what Holocaust Denial looks like:

The Holocaust never happened. It was a Zionist conspiracy.

^

This.

Not what I've been saying.

[The Blaatschapen]

You can compile a list of atrocities, explain the metrics and then see how the holocaust ranks up.

Yes, there are a few other atrocities which are pretty bad too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor comes to mind.

However, I'll put my money out there that the Holocaust is a top 10 one in terms of both death count and ruthlessness.

I hate that I have to bring up a list, which shouldn't change the fact that any genocide is awful. But yes, the Holocaust is the worst.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_g ... death_toll

Which is why I deliberately did not put the list out there I hate it too

[Heloin]

If someone came up to me and said: "The Great Leap Forward was worse than the Holocaust and it is Number One in the Most Evil Things Ever because the Holocaust killed 17 million while the GLF killed 20-200 million people"

I would say, "Okay, using that criteria, you may have a point"

...

If someone said "The Holocaust was Number One because even though other mass murder campaigns have killed more people and perhaps entailed just as much torture or more... the RACIAL nature of the persecution and the sheer destructive intent and the systematic way it was carried out makes it NUMBER ONE."

I'd say, "Okay, using a certain criteria, you may have a point"

...

In the same vein, if someone said, "Surely Number One is the IJA's actions in the Pacific because they killed millions of civilians and did unspeakably cruel things like cut out infants from mothers while everyone was alive in Nanking; they also performed tortuous experiments on a much larger scale..."

I'd say, "Okay, if you look at certain writers and certain criteria, you may have a point"

...

I'd even be open to an argument that the Rwandan Genocide, though its brutal simplistic nature of people wielding machetes and chasing you out to cut you up alive... deserves a spot near the top. Maybe for certain types of people, that is the ultimate nightmare and they think its Number One for these subjective substantive reasons..

...

I don't see why people have to be so close-minded in their argumentation to go... "Oh you DON'T think the Holocaust was the VERY WORST OF ALL THINGS?! THEN CLEAR SIR YOU ARE AN APOLOGIST/DENIER!"

Maybe the best option would be not trying to rank crimes against humanity. I'm not going around saying that the extermination of the Selk'nam people is not that bad since only ~3000 people died when the Armenian Genocide killed ~1-2 million.