• paholg@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Let’s see. 34 countries and the EU consider the Holodomor (check your spelling btw) a genocide.

    I can find… well, you, and nothing else claiming the dust bowl is a genocide.

    • brain_in_a_box [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      34 countries and the EU consider the Holodomor (check your spelling btw) a genocide.

      Interesting; and when did they make this entirely non-political determination?

      Also, that leaves 161 countries that don’t consider it a genocide. Oh, but let me guess: us-foreign-policy

      I can find… well, you, and nothing else claiming the dust bowl is a genocide.

      I didn’t realize that whether something was a genocide or not was decided by vote.

      • paholg@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not not a vote. It’s a classification; they tend to not have perfect clear boundaries, and so one goes with the prevailing opinion of experts.

        But let’s forget the term “genocide”. In the USSR, millions of people were intentionally killed for no good reason. That’s fucked.

        • brain_in_a_box [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not not a vote. It’s a classification; they tend to not have perfect clear boundaries, and so one goes with the prevailing opinion of experts.

          Which you didn’t do, you instead tried to act like the votes of white European countries were the determinants.

          But let’s forget the term “genocide”.

          No, you used it, stand by it.

          • paholg@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I do stand by it. But it’s not an interesting discussion for me to just go back and forth on a definition.

            I’m trying to understand if we can agree on basic facts. I suspect that we cannot, which means there’s not much point in having any discussion. But I’m open to the chance that we can.

            • brain_in_a_box [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              I do stand by it.

              Then do so, don’t try and equivocate.

              But it’s not an interesting discussion for me to just go back and forth on a definition.

              We were not arguing about definitions.

              I’m trying to understand if we can agree on basic facts.

              Sure, but don’t expect me to honor a double standard.