[qubex]

I am absolutely arguing in good faith, and you should abstain from downplaying the atrocities that have befallen others and who still scar their descendants to this day. An off-colour joke was made and nobody here is calling it out for what it is, everybody is piling on to defend who made it. The joke was crass and insensitive and, if absolutely I must point this out, insofar as the original post was regarding the Armenian language it is highly likely that the original poster is Armenian themselves, making this Armenian-centric dialogue a kind of “Armenian space”.

[Dilettante_]

>downplaying the atrocities

Like three times in this conversation I've explicitly differentiated between 'making jokes about' and 'downplaying' something, and every time you have failed to engage with my reasoning and instead chosen to simply double down on your two-dimensional accusation.

[qubex]

Just because you state that “making jokes about” is not tantamount to “downplaying” doesn’t mean I have to accept your distinction. They are materially indistinguishable in this context.

[Dilettante_]

>doesn’t mean I have to accept your distinction

No, but not engaging with my argument supporting my position(about the emergency workers, though if your point is about this specific joke and not jokes about taboo topics in general I'll admit that that is moot), and setting up strawmen("about how the Holocaust wasn’t so bad?") means you're not arguing in good faith.

This isn't a discussion, you're just yelling your opinion at me over and over.

[qubex]

Fair enough, you might have a point insofar as we need not agree — the same goes both ways. However I find it hard to label a sequence of words that underplays the magnitude of the ‘issue’ to be worthy of the term ‘joke’. I can see that I might’ve been carried away in making my point, but it still stands when said more placidly: genocide is not a laughing matter.

[Dilettante_]

>underplays the magnitude of the ‘issue’

That jogged me a little: The magnitude of the issue would be different in the mind of any person: The original poster of the joke and I see more of a historical fact and engage with it fairly casually, while someone very directly affected might still (I maintain, though you don't have to agree) make jokes about it, but a very different kind of joke, one that does include the seriousness of the issue to them.

I'm having a little trouble articulating it, but I think my point is: You were "right" to call out the original joke as coming from a place of not-as-serious-about-the-genocide as, well, you seem to be. But this is a function of us, the people who indeed are not as serious about it as those more closely affected, not of it being a joke.