this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2024
456 points (86.1% liked)

News

23311 readers
4112 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The most famous forms of Holocaust denial and revisionism tend to focus on Jews, casting doubt, for example, on how many were exterminated in the camps. But denying the impact the Nazis had on the other groups they targeted, including queer and trans people, disabled people and Romani people, is still Holocaust denial. Maybe someone should tell J.K. Rowling.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

"In general"

"preferred"

Still sounds like "kill fewer and fewer Jews until the killing can stop."

[–] Lath@kbin.earth 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Actually, by in general, I was thinking about people who live their lives in constant suffering and would like to have the option of a peaceful release.
Euthanasia is still taking a life, and I would prefer an alternative to that.

Was writing "in general" not enough to go beyond this particular instance?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

When talking about gradually and cautiously ending a genocide? No, it was not.

[–] Lath@kbin.earth 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Really? How many good men or women can one find in a country, willing and able to head out across borders to get involved into a war, solely to sacrifice themselves for the sake of saving others from genocide?

I'm not seeing armies heading out to save Palestine. Ukraine. Any of the African countries currently at war that i know so little about.

Simple truth is that not everyone agrees with this kind of selfless sacrifice.
The US had a small, but growing Nazism political party in its ranks before the war and the majority of those able to vote were against sending troops before Pearl Harbor happened. What do you think would have been the result had the acting US government sent troops into Europe without the approval of their citizens and without the shaming of the middling Nazis among them?

When forcing the issue, without making sure the ones opposing it won't suddenly strike at your back, you only send out more people to their deaths. And instead help the enemy achieve their goals more easily instead.
Nazist America was a real possibility at the time, not just a fantasy.

So yes, moderate, cautious and gradual isn't the evil you want it to be. It's just another route that considers the consequences of failure. And it's not without flaws, principal being the people involved.

Also, you may think I'm advocating for it, but that's just a side effect of my original point. Anything can be a force for either good or bad. Only focusing on the bad points and ignoring the good, vilifies it.

Tell me how that at its most basic meaning is different from what those you claim to hate are doing. Just because the subject of the hatred is different doesn't change the fact that the act of hatred is the same damn thing.

You don't like that things can be both bad and good? That's fine. But what you're pursuing is purity. Doesn't matter which side of the extreme you're looking for, it's still an extreme.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

None of that has anything to do with the idea that gradually ending genocide is anything but abhorrent.

The fact that people do abhorrent things doesn't make things less abhorrent.

And gradually ending the Final Solution, slowly killing fewer and fewer Jews, is a monstrous idea. But that's what 'gradual' means.

[–] Lath@kbin.earth 1 points 8 months ago

I wrote a lot of stuff, but then I realized I don't really understand what you're trying to say.

Are you speaking exclusively about the idea itself or the circumstances of the past?
Because if you're talking only about the theoretical idea, then I agree with an immediate stop or prevention.

But if you're talking of the circumstances of the past, I was pretty much wrapped up in the details of realistically trying to reduce the losses. Couldn't figure out what magic way you wanted for the allies to save them sooner.