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.