4 ms·

I suggest you read the article. If that doesn't answer your question I think you and I are interpreting the claim differently.

by mkl 4y ago

wolverine876 4y ago
I'm not reading articles (especially Wikipedia) and trying to infer your argument for you. You state it if you've got it. Stop making excuses. Assume I know about the Cambodian genocide.
- ricardobeat 4y ago
  "tried to restart society by eliminating people who didn't fit the mold" seems like a decent, if a bit simplistic, description of the Cambodian genocide. What exactly are you up against?
  - churchill 4y ago
    Dude, why not read the article first? Kampuchean communists (under Pol Pot) murdered nearly 20% of Cambodia's population of 7.8 million in just four years. There goal was to build a self-sustaining agrarian society and everyone who even looked like an intellectual, had a university education, had glasses, or some other trappings of Western life was eliminated or sent to concentration camps where they mostly died. Why? Because the didn't fit the mold of "suffering farmers oppressed under capitalism & imperialism, waiting to be rescued." Please, this is widely documented and trying to suggest otherwise seems quite disingenuous.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      Uh, did you reply to the right person?
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    What claim in the original post does that support? None, it has nothing to do with it.
    - ricardobeat 4y ago
      The comment you responded to said > I agree with you that inconvenient truths now get muzzled because they don’t fit an acceptable meta-narrative. This is very problematic for society and when taken to the maximum, can lead to thinks like Cambodia’s attempt at restarting society by killing all those who didn’t fit the model they were looking for. And then you took issue with the description of the Cambodian genocide. Despite the fact that he was agreeing with you. Now you start a whole new argument. I'm not even sure what are you trying to argue about.
      - wolverine876 4y ago
        No, I took issue with "can lead to".

I suggest you read the article. If that doesn't answer your question I think you and I are interpreting the claim differently.

by mkl 4y ago

I suggest you read the article. If that doesn't answer your question I think you and I are interpreting the claim differently.

wolverine876 4y ago

I'm not reading articles (especially Wikipedia) and trying to infer your argument for you. You state it if you've got it. Stop making excuses. Assume I know about the Cambodian genocide.

ricardobeat 4y ago
"tried to restart society by eliminating people who didn't fit the mold" seems like a decent, if a bit simplistic, description of the Cambodian genocide. What exactly are you up against?
- churchill 4y ago
  Dude, why not read the article first? Kampuchean communists (under Pol Pot) murdered nearly 20% of Cambodia's population of 7.8 million in just four years. There goal was to build a self-sustaining agrarian society and everyone who even looked like an intellectual, had a university education, had glasses, or some other trappings of Western life was eliminated or sent to concentration camps where they mostly died. Why? Because the didn't fit the mold of "suffering farmers oppressed under capitalism & imperialism, waiting to be rescued." Please, this is widely documented and trying to suggest otherwise seems quite disingenuous.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    Uh, did you reply to the right person?
- wolverine876 4y ago
  What claim in the original post does that support? None, it has nothing to do with it.
  - ricardobeat 4y ago
    The comment you responded to said > I agree with you that inconvenient truths now get muzzled because they don’t fit an acceptable meta-narrative. This is very problematic for society and when taken to the maximum, can lead to thinks like Cambodia’s attempt at restarting society by killing all those who didn’t fit the model they were looking for. And then you took issue with the description of the Cambodian genocide. Despite the fact that he was agreeing with you. Now you start a whole new argument. I'm not even sure what are you trying to argue about.
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      No, I took issue with "can lead to".