Comment

Spzi@lemm.ee ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

we get called something that implies you won’t take us seriously (e.g. genocide denier is a more common one among others we’d consider on the left), why bother with civility or politeness?

Interesting you’re commonly being called genocide deniers. I haven’t seen a specific case yet, but I’ve seen the accusation frequently.

You seem to imply the accusation is not justified. But assuming this is case, you do note it is brought up frequently. You may also be aware that most other communities don’t have that issue.

So if you are right and you are not genocide deniers, where is communication going wrong that others still frequently think you are? Maybe you can present your ideas in a way which is less misleading, to make yourself better understood. To help others to understand you better.

A common practice is to distance yourself from a bad thing for which you don’t want to be mistaken. Inversely, the lack of such distancing can sometimes be seen as evidence for alignment with bad things.

If you’re still with me, let’s switch perspectives for a second. Assuming you realize you’re talking with a genocide denier, which you despise very much. Would you care wether they deny genocide politely and with civility (if that last bit even makes sense)? I’d say you probably already lost the conversation if the other side thinks you’re a genocide denier, and how much effort you put into being polite and ‘civil’ is meaningless at this point.

From my understanding, the term “genocide denier” correlates strongly with arguing in bad faith, and not taking things seriously. It seemed important to you that you are the opposite; arguing in good faith and you want to be taken seriously. Which highlights the importance of the first section of this comment. Help others understand easier and clearer who you are, or who you are not. If you are commonly misunderstood, it’s probably worth questioning where things go wrong and how you can change how you are being perceived.

source

Sort:hotnew top

keepcarrot@hexbear.net ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I personally avoid argument threads for the most part unless I have a dire social need, but not every conversation is necessarily about the Holodomor and Xinjiang (the two points of contention it seems).

I’d hope that everyone I talk to and take seriously is a denier of “White Genocide”, the theory that white people are under threat of being bred out and marginalised in their own lands by the deliberate machinations of refugees and immigrants. In this rather gross example, we wouldn’t refer to each other as genocide deniers.

After which point it becomes a discussion about what actually happened, what constitutes a genocide, whether that fits this legal definition or that etc. But the conversation never gets that far.

Personally I’m not super interested in relitigating this conversation every time a Chinese cop does something or a member of Azov sneezes. But if other people get something out of it, idk. Whatever. But it is a point of friction between our communities.

source
- Spzi@lemm.ee ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  I personally avoid argument threads for the most part unless I have a dire social need, but not every conversation is necessarily about the Holodomor and Xinjiang (the two points of contention it seems).
  
  I’d hope that everyone I talk to and take seriously is a denier of “White Genocide”, the theory that white people are under threat of being bred out and marginalised in their own lands by the deliberate machinations of refugees and immigrants. In this rather gross example, we wouldn’t refer to each other as genocide deniers.
  
  Genocide denial refers to pretending a genocide did not happen. You’re talking about a conspiracy theory. “We are under [perceived] threat” is something else, notably weaker, than “We are being eradicated”. Not agreeing to a conspiracy theory is not similar to denying a piece of history happened.
  
  This answer made me question wether you are arguing in good faith. It feels like a mix of confusing terms and some whataboutism. When you were aware what the points of contention are, why bring up another, unrelated, imaginary example which doesn’t even fit?
  
  This allows the reader to question wether you see other, actual genocides as similar to imagined ones, which are only subject of conspiracy theories, not mass graves. I can see how this can be read as genocide denial, or at least downplaying.
  
  source
axont@hexbear.net ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Ok first I’m gonna point out that I don’t wanna re-litigate any of this and I’m not interested in conversation about the content, but rather how the conversations normally go. I’m honestly not an expert on this stuff and it’s really tiring constantly talking about them. The main things that end up being fierce discussions right now are issues with China (namely Xinjiang and the 1989 Tienanmen square incident), and sometimes issues with the USSR (namely the 1930s Ukranian famines).

it seems like that no matter how much discussion is had on this stuff, nothing budges, no one comes away with different ideas and none of it matters. It always devolves down into shit-flinging, because the conversations themselves are proxies for current unresolved political contests. I don’t think the historical content of the stuff even matters anymore. Furthermore even scholars on these subjects are divided. There isn’t a consensus among historians on if the Soviet Union is responsible for genocide, there are nuanced stances on Tienanmen square, and there’s a vast gulf of stances on how Xinjiang is talked about. And that’s because it’s all still part of the same proxy for political competition. These historical incidents are not yet resolved as unanimous because there is still an ongoing worldwide conflict between powers that could broadly be described as capitalist/western/wealthy and another set broadly described as socialist/unaffiliated/poor.

so even in civil spheres like international diplomacy and academics, talking about genocide or the nature of historical events can be highly politicized. There’s also a lot to be said about admitting certain deaths occurred without ascribing certain political motivations to them. That seems to be a massive point of contention specifically. For instance, I might say that the events of Tienanmen square did occur, but the way they’re talked about is misinformed or that the conflict is presented in an incorrect framework, which is the standard kind of Marxist view of the event. Other frameworks might say it was a conflict between value systems, between freedom and tyranny, whereas a Marxist might say something more like it was an event caused by social dissatisfaction with the Chinese market reforms started in the 70s, and this dissatisfaction came from both a working class socialist perspective and a more wealthy liberal perspective.

To some people this is unthinkable, to present it in a different framework is to deny accepted events entirely, and I don’t think that’s true. Scholars are constantly redrawing the frameworks for why events occurred, and all history is going to be seen differently by people of different class perspectives.

source