You’re correct generically but what I’m referring to in this particular article is a rhetorical feedback loop. The basic structure of the argument is as follows

You’re correct generically but what I’m referring to in this particular article is a rhetorical feedback loop. The basic structure of the argument is as follows: 1. Genocide occurred 2. Serbs created cultural trope around genocide denialism (bad) 3. American response to coronavirus is like 2 The article presents a very thoughtful analysis of an atrocity that occurred followed by a collective denial, but it falls completely short in presenting a parallel to American culture / current events (point 3). This is where the feedback loop comes into play. The author asserts that our pandemic response is similar to a genocide, but he doesn’t establish _how_, which would actually be the most crucial detail if this were a good-faith argument and not an emotional appeal wrapped as intellect porn. Without establishing _how_, it is left to the reader to fill in the details. What exactly about the situation in America is like genocide in Bosnia? In order to do piece this together, the reader must assume the conclusion (3) as a premise and work backwards. The piece falls entirely flat because it starts as a passionate and well-presented takedown of consensus reality underpinned by mass denialism, and ends with a metaphor that can only hold true if the reader adopts a particular consensus reality. It’s left as a challenge to the reader to fill in a reality that supports the author’s comparison to genocide. Our virtue is at stake because we all agree that genocide is bad. But that’s not a real argument.