3 ms·

Interesting conclusion, since I didn't make a claim either way. Still, for the record, other independent observers have documented the practices and explained

by tome 1y ago

Interesting conclusion, since I didn't make a claim either way. Still, for the record, other independent observers have documented the practices and explained why they don't meet the definition of genocide, John Spencer and Natasha Hausdorff to name two examples. It seems by no means clear that it's valid to make a claim of genocide. I certainly wouldn't unless I was really, really certain of my claim, because to get such a claim wrong is equally egregious to denying a true genocide, in my opinion.

SantalBlush 1y ago
[flagged]
- tome 1y ago
  I'm happy to answer that. No I wouldn't. The Holocaust is probably the most studied subject in human history. It's not as though there is much uncertainty about the major events of it. In any case, this is really going off topic. All I am interested in is in voidhorse's answer to my simple question. That doesn't require retreading many of the the dark corners of human history.
  - SantalBlush 1y ago
    If you wouldn't deny the holocaust based on the same evidence you just gave for denying the Palestinian genocide, that suggests the evidence you gave was never valid for denying a genocide in the first place. Your reasoning is arbitrary.
    - tome 1y ago
      But it's not the same evidence. It's a completely different situation. Completely different events have occurred, completely different amounts of time have elapsed since and they have been subjected to completely different amounts of scrutiny. There's just no comparison.
      - SantalBlush 1y ago
        Exactly. Arbitrary. You haven't laid out your personal methodology for determining whether something is a genocide, so you can give ad hoc reasons--like you just did--for why you made the judgement that you did. In one case, naming two people who studied the events in Gaza and denied that it's a genocide was sufficient. In the other, you required a higher threshold of evidence. Arbitrary reasoning.
        tome 1y ago
        But I'm not making the claim that there's no genocide. And I certainly don't have a "personal methodology for determining whether something is a genocide"! (Do you?!) I'm pointing out that Ar-Curunir's claims don't seem to be supported by sufficient evidence, which is exactly what you are accusing me of doing here. Why don't you accuse Ar-Curunir instead? If there's a genocide I would really like to know about it. All right-thinking decent people should. But the people pushing the idea that there is one don't seem to be applying sufficient rational skepticism and don't seem to be willing to engage in intellectual discourse on the topic, so they're really not winning me over. Here's one of the big questions I find it hard to get an answer to: how is what's happening in Gaza materially different from what happened to Germany and Japan during WWII, or to the Vietnamese during the Vietnam war?
        SantalBlush 1y ago
        I'll tell you what: if you prove to me that the Nazis committed genocide against the Jews and others--that is, if you win me over--then I promise I will prove to you that the Israelis are committing genocide against Palestinians. If you can't, or refuse, then I'll assume you concede the point. To be clear, I'm not making the claim that the Nazis didn't commit genocide, I'll just apply rational skepticism to your points.
        tome 1y ago
        I have no interest in proving anything to you. It's you who seems to have an interest in proving something to me. Your message suggests you _can_ do so, so please go ahead. I would particularly interested in your answer to my question above: how is what's happening in Gaza materially different from what happened to Germany and Japan during WWII, or to the Vietnamese during the Vietnam war?
voidhorse 1y ago
[flagged]
- tome 1y ago
  Sorry, what in my post suggests intellectual dishonesty? Under your dictionary definition, would you say that the Allies in WWII committed genocide of Germans and Japanese? If you say "yes", then I suppose you're entitled to your interpretation, and I know exactly how seriously to take it. If you say "no" then perhaps you could explain what is the difference between WWII (where proportionally far more civilians were killed) and the current Gaza war. > you can maintain that attachment and still condemn horrific acts committed by the state when they happen I agree. And one can refrain from condemning horrific acts that one is not certain happened. I'm happy to continue the discussion if you like, but all I'm really after is your answer to this simple question: do you see defence of true genocide as equally bad as false accusation of genocide? I would be content with a simple yes or no. Or does the question make you uncomfortable somehow?
  - tome 1y ago
    Oh, perhaps this response, which I missed implies you think that defence of genocide is worse than false accusation of genocide: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44320889 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44320889

by tome 1y ago

SantalBlush 1y ago

[flagged]

tome 1y ago
I'm happy to answer that. No I wouldn't. The Holocaust is probably the most studied subject in human history. It's not as though there is much uncertainty about the major events of it. In any case, this is really going off topic. All I am interested in is in voidhorse's answer to my simple question. That doesn't require retreading many of the the dark corners of human history.
- SantalBlush 1y ago
  If you wouldn't deny the holocaust based on the same evidence you just gave for denying the Palestinian genocide, that suggests the evidence you gave was never valid for denying a genocide in the first place. Your reasoning is arbitrary.
  - tome 1y ago
    But it's not the same evidence. It's a completely different situation. Completely different events have occurred, completely different amounts of time have elapsed since and they have been subjected to completely different amounts of scrutiny. There's just no comparison.
    - SantalBlush 1y ago
      Exactly. Arbitrary. You haven't laid out your personal methodology for determining whether something is a genocide, so you can give ad hoc reasons--like you just did--for why you made the judgement that you did. In one case, naming two people who studied the events in Gaza and denied that it's a genocide was sufficient. In the other, you required a higher threshold of evidence. Arbitrary reasoning.
      - tome 1y ago
        But I'm not making the claim that there's no genocide. And I certainly don't have a "personal methodology for determining whether something is a genocide"! (Do you?!) I'm pointing out that Ar-Curunir's claims don't seem to be supported by sufficient evidence, which is exactly what you are accusing me of doing here. Why don't you accuse Ar-Curunir instead? If there's a genocide I would really like to know about it. All right-thinking decent people should. But the people pushing the idea that there is one don't seem to be applying sufficient rational skepticism and don't seem to be willing to engage in intellectual discourse on the topic, so they're really not winning me over. Here's one of the big questions I find it hard to get an answer to: how is what's happening in Gaza materially different from what happened to Germany and Japan during WWII, or to the Vietnamese during the Vietnam war?
        SantalBlush 1y ago
        I'll tell you what: if you prove to me that the Nazis committed genocide against the Jews and others--that is, if you win me over--then I promise I will prove to you that the Israelis are committing genocide against Palestinians. If you can't, or refuse, then I'll assume you concede the point. To be clear, I'm not making the claim that the Nazis didn't commit genocide, I'll just apply rational skepticism to your points.
        tome 1y ago
        I have no interest in proving anything to you. It's you who seems to have an interest in proving something to me. Your message suggests you _can_ do so, so please go ahead. I would particularly interested in your answer to my question above: how is what's happening in Gaza materially different from what happened to Germany and Japan during WWII, or to the Vietnamese during the Vietnam war?

voidhorse 1y ago

[flagged]

tome 1y ago
Sorry, what in my post suggests intellectual dishonesty? Under your dictionary definition, would you say that the Allies in WWII committed genocide of Germans and Japanese? If you say "yes", then I suppose you're entitled to your interpretation, and I know exactly how seriously to take it. If you say "no" then perhaps you could explain what is the difference between WWII (where proportionally far more civilians were killed) and the current Gaza war. > you can maintain that attachment and still condemn horrific acts committed by the state when they happen I agree. And one can refrain from condemning horrific acts that one is not certain happened. I'm happy to continue the discussion if you like, but all I'm really after is your answer to this simple question: do you see defence of true genocide as equally bad as false accusation of genocide? I would be content with a simple yes or no. Or does the question make you uncomfortable somehow?
- tome 1y ago
  Oh, perhaps this response, which I missed implies you think that defence of genocide is worse than false accusation of genocide: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44320889 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44320889