5 ms·

See my sibling comment. You don't need a consensus. You can list multiple perspectives and have them coexist. That's how we have to do with religion for example

by lwouis 5y ago

See my sibling comment. You don't need a consensus. You can list multiple perspectives and have them coexist. That's how we have to do with religion for example. There can't be a consensus there clearly, so we share all perspectives. Facts of life such as what's on Wikipedia should be edited as well as narrated by a variety of sources so that it represents the diversity of humankind

mschuster91 5y ago
The question if something was a "massacre" or an "incident" or if a Nazi installation was a "concentration/extermination camp" or a "collection camp" is not something that allows coexistence or diversity.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  >if a Nazi installation was a "concentration/extermination camp" or a "collection camp" I'm not sure if a "collection camp" is an accepted term, or a term related to Holocaust denial, but there is a fact-based distinction between concentration and extermination camps, and a "collection camp" sounds like it might mean a camp that was used to gather people to be sent on to the others. For example, "the Theresienstadt ghetto functioned in part as a transit center for Jews from Czechoslovakia, Germany and Austria on their way to extermination camps and other mass killing centers" Regarding massacres: "The term massacre, being a synonym of "butchery, carnage", is by nature hyperbolic or subjective, primarily used in partisan descriptions of events. There is no neutral definition of what constitutes a "massacre" although some authors using the term may lay down general "working definitions" of what they mean by the term" Things described as massacres seem to range from the killing of 3 people to a million.
  - alisonkisk 5y ago
    Even laying aside "extermination camps", both US and Nazi Germany ran "concentration camps". They were very, very different.
- lwouis 5y ago
  Why is that one special? People hold impacting opinions like "gays should (not) marry". Picking a side and saying "this perspective shouldn't exist" represents one group becoming dominant and trying to suppress the other. Some people may think more accurate to talk about "extermination/concentration/ccollection". These opinions should be reflected if want an open conversation instead of oppression of a dominant group. It's tempting to think that our own cultural group is the one in the right and that we need to educate others, but a quick look at History shows the limits of that mindset
  - mschuster91 5y ago
    > Picking a side and saying "this perspective shouldn't exist" represents one group becoming dominant and trying to suppress the other. "The other" group are Nazis and Holocaust deniers. In many European countries, these are suppressed by law, and for good reason. Additionally, history revisionism - of which Holocaust denial is a subset - is an actual threat to a democratic society, as a functioning democracy at its core requires arguments based on facts, not lies.

by lwouis 5y ago

mschuster91 5y ago

The question if something was a "massacre" or an "incident" or if a Nazi installation was a "concentration/extermination camp" or a "collection camp" is not something that allows coexistence or diversity.

perl4ever 5y ago
>if a Nazi installation was a "concentration/extermination camp" or a "collection camp" I'm not sure if a "collection camp" is an accepted term, or a term related to Holocaust denial, but there is a fact-based distinction between concentration and extermination camps, and a "collection camp" sounds like it might mean a camp that was used to gather people to be sent on to the others. For example, "the Theresienstadt ghetto functioned in part as a transit center for Jews from Czechoslovakia, Germany and Austria on their way to extermination camps and other mass killing centers" Regarding massacres: "The term massacre, being a synonym of "butchery, carnage", is by nature hyperbolic or subjective, primarily used in partisan descriptions of events. There is no neutral definition of what constitutes a "massacre" although some authors using the term may lay down general "working definitions" of what they mean by the term" Things described as massacres seem to range from the killing of 3 people to a million.
- alisonkisk 5y ago
  Even laying aside "extermination camps", both US and Nazi Germany ran "concentration camps". They were very, very different.
lwouis 5y ago
Why is that one special? People hold impacting opinions like "gays should (not) marry". Picking a side and saying "this perspective shouldn't exist" represents one group becoming dominant and trying to suppress the other. Some people may think more accurate to talk about "extermination/concentration/ccollection". These opinions should be reflected if want an open conversation instead of oppression of a dominant group. It's tempting to think that our own cultural group is the one in the right and that we need to educate others, but a quick look at History shows the limits of that mindset
- mschuster91 5y ago
  > Picking a side and saying "this perspective shouldn't exist" represents one group becoming dominant and trying to suppress the other. "The other" group are Nazis and Holocaust deniers. In many European countries, these are suppressed by law, and for good reason. Additionally, history revisionism - of which Holocaust denial is a subset - is an actual threat to a democratic society, as a functioning democracy at its core requires arguments based on facts, not lies.