As others mentioned, most apps offer word filters, just got to hit enough key words. I blocked the word “Tr*mp” and it cleared my main feed up real good already, with some fine tuning I guess I can get rid of the rest too.

Still no relevant response to what I pointed out, buddy,.

Nope, not what we were talking about mate. Op said:

That’s not outrage being directed at the perpetrator, it’s outrage being directed at an entire demographic of people of which the perpetrator happens to belong.

You said :

It’s not in the article, it’s in the comment you were replying to. What am I missing?

So don’t try to move the goalposts just because you talked shit, I’m sick of this bullshit.

We were talking about why a, admittedly monstrous, rapist needs to be used to demonize a whole demographic. You pretended like that wasn’t in the article, I proved it was, that is the fucking conversation we’re having here.

Oh I don’t know maybe the first three words?

MONSTERS APPEAL MIGRANT

Or the next three words that follow

the MONSTER migrant

Instead of maybe “the rapist”, no we got to tie in that he is a migrant in all caps, at every possible turn.

Also further down referred to as

the MONSTER

Or

the migrant

Oh and also let’s rope in some unrelated burglar who also happens to be a migrant.

All very easy to spot so I figure you’re not really asking in good faith, just like someone who has an agency in “just asking questions” would do.

Saudi Human rights commission is like marriage counseling in a brothel.

This would be a good time for German unions to present an initiative.

German workers protection and union laws are pretty solid, I wouldn’t worry about that too much.

Several American ventures had a pretty rude awakening after challenging them. Ever wondered why we don’t have Walmart or Uber over here? Ubers activities are very limited in Germany because of worker protection laws and Walmart retreated from the German market over it, among other issues with German culture and law.

You better not smoke it with 20+ open wounds in your mouth…

I understand that now, my phrasing was poor and I also didn’t make it clear that I was trying to engage with the comment and underline the missing nuance and not with the conversation about walz, although i was also missing some nuance in my comment I agree.

You lost the crowd immediately

Yeah going back I can see that most didn’t make it past the first two sentences, that is on me. I guess after the first answers I was just angry people were unwilling to engage with the content of my comment, so I wasn’t able to see my own shortcomings without you pointing me at them.

I appreciate the insight and the kindness of encouraging me to reflect that instead of just piling on. Thank you!

I agree with all that you said.

I think the issue you’re running into is that the point here is Walz is being subjected to ad hominem to distract from a broader discussion on the nature of genocide because such discussions are bad for Israel and their conservative benefactors in the US.

Ah yeah that makes sense, your rephrasing made me understand the issue.

The Holocaust is unique in a particular sense, but that is not what Walz is talking about; in the context he is speaking, the Holocaust is not unique. Essentially, the Holocaust, as a vivid and well-documented case study, can and should be a window into the broader history of genocide and human rights abuse.

I understand, I was trying to point out that nuance is important in that instance, the uniqueness of the event is a good cautionary tale and to diminish that into a too broad of a “genocide blanket” would take away from the unique problems genocide projects into our modern world.

Similar to how antisemitism is a form of racism but in its “design” it is still a unique form of racism.

Although my attempt was way less eloquent than yours.

Thank you, that was the first comment that actually engaged with what I tried to say.

Sure whatever you want to believe, I gave up on this thread having any sort of constructive argument or insight. Didn’t even have to be valuable insight, but there’s nothing here to be found.

Does all that make it a quantifier, was this genocide more “genocidy” then others?

No, just that the way it was carried out was unique, no more no less, but to deny that is just revisionism.

Does all that make it a quantifier, was this genocide more “genocidy” then others?

No, just that the way it was carried out was unique, no more no less, but to deny that is just revisionism.

I have pointed at exactly this sort of quantifier as being wrong already in my original comment.

Edit: Really, the above comment gets up votes for alleging something I explicitly spoke out against in my first comment? Guess it’s correct what people say about .ml

It wasn’t unique, it wasn’t a “one off”.

I disagree with the premise, the Holocaust was unique. It was unique in its effectiveness, it was a meticulously planned machinery of death the world has never seen before or after. The Jews weren’t just killed where they could be found, they were caught, cataloged, transported, sorted and then murdered as effectively as possible. Death on a well planned assembly line.

** Does all that make it a quantifier, was this genocide more “genocidy” then others?

No, just that the way it was carried out was unique, no more no less, but to deny that is just revisionism. **

The unique framing appeals to conservatives as it feeds into exceptionalism and impunity. “We’re special!” It’s those people who only care about stuff when it happens to them.

That’s just a disgusting take just someone very privileged is able to have.

Gnnnhhhh …engage! Sound of water splashing

Adding to all the good ideas in hope I haven’t over read it -

There’s sleeves for woods and other taller clubs, you can have it embroidered with custom designs, like names or something.

My dad had one that looked like a turtle, maybe there’s something nice for her. I like that you can customize it.

Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466-1536), Dutch Renaissance humanist:“To what corner of the world do they not fly, these swarms of new books?”

I think people were concerned about that kind of scenario since the invention of the printing press, if not the written word itself. Not trying to dismiss the destructive potential the Internet can and will have in the future, just pointing out, that this kind of fear is not new.