[cess11]

A few days ago you posted comments where you questioned whether it was appropriate to apply lessons from the Holocaust when interpreting contemporary state policies, and that some Wikipedia "spree" convinced you that it wasn't appropriate.

This likely means that you consider current starvation campaigns with exterminationist aims more defensible than 'der Hungerplan' and Vernichtungskrieg of the Holocaust. To me this makes you "one of the baddies". The attempt to exterminate the palestinians or the attacks on sudanese refugees and civilian infrastructure or the bombing campaigns against civilian targets in Yemen are, in principle, at least as indefensible as the starvation tactics of the german eastern advance during WWII.

Those responsible should ideally be brought to the ICC or related tribunals and tried for their crimes. You disagree, judging from your comments in that thread.

What would it take to change your mind?

[blueflow]

No, it means that i use the word "Holocaust" exclusively for this specific genocide. It follows that the rest of your comment doesn't apply.

[cess11]

Someone wrote:

"There are numerous conflicts worldwide where one side is trying to systematically destroy the other population, civilians and all. Whether they are exactly the same or how you define that is pretty secondary to that fact."

To which you responded:

"Whatever. Since my last Wikipedia spree on that topic i feel such comparisons are highly inappropriate."

This was in reply to this specific context:

"It's interesting we always talked about the Holocaust and the Nuremberg trials when talking about accountability, as if similar atrocities aren't currently happening."

Now, what would it take for you to change your mind and to start agreeing that contemporary crimes of deliberate starvation and exterminationist policies should be tried in an international court or tribunal?

To you, what is it that makes the Holocaust so very special? To a large extent it was perpetrated in the same manner as the genocide against the circassians, and to an extent in the same manner as the genocide against the herero and nama peoples. In your mind, was the Holocaust just the killing by poison and that's why you don't see any contemporary cases of similarity?

[blueflow]

> Now, what would it take for you to change your mind and to start agreeing that contemporary crimes of deliberate starvation and exterminationist policies should be tried in an international court or tribunal?

Nothing, because that's already my opinion.

> What is it that makes the Holocaust so very special?

The name.

So this has been a trivial misunderstanding on terminology, and you kinda went full flak on me. Someone else got their point proven.

[notnaut]

To a lurker scanning this thread, this comes off as “I’m more interested in semantics and winning an argument than condemning abusive and antisocial behavior.”

[blueflow]

What should i say instead?

[cess11]

That's akin to a straw man, as shown by the quotes above. You clearly claimed that contemporary genocidal processes are "highly inappropriate" to compare to the Holocaust. This in response to someone using the Nuremberg trials as a frame of reference for suggesting that contemporary exterminationist criminals should be held accountable.

But it's great that you've changed your mind since then.

[blueflow]

You are full of confidence while i am unhappy that my writings didn't rule out such an garbage interpretation.

[cess11]

I'm actually almost full of doubt.

Maybe that unhappiness leads to you managing to better keep "garbage interpretations" at bay the next time you engage with a topic that touches on atrocities.