“needlessly personal” hmm. I wonder what he was referring to that made it so personal. Hmmmmmmmmm. Was it perhaps his race?

I love how when a scheme like this fails people like you act like it succeeded in your rhetoric. Very silly billy ain’t ya

“Peaceful revolution impossible makes violent revolution inevitable” people when violent revolution starts (👁 ͜ʖ👁)

It’s the principle of it.

True, and that’s a failing on them. Real baby shit

Thank you

Derail a thread with a small side suggestion. That’s a lot of pushback to a small request. Almost like you actively wish to not have enslaved people humanized in conversation.

You can always just not say it yourself. To actively try and start fights about it implies malice.

Changing the language you use about a thing changes your perception of that thing. This is data driven reality of making small changes to the way you talk actively changes the thought process on it. You can be lazy and not do it, it’s your own language. But that’s all your doing. Being lazy, or actively reactionary.

Seems a lot of people here are against the humanizing of enslaved people’s. Weird.

God forbid someone on a thread based system bring up a related topic on the side. Like, is that really your complaint? Oh no guys, the humanization of enslaved people’s is derailing this 3rd person’s quip. Quick, we must stop him!

Silly billy you are.

It’s just good to reinforce the idea that enslaved people’s were people who were enslaved. Not a profession, slave was not their job, it was their status.

Plus studies have shown that by using these people first language, especially while teaching the subject, results in higher empathy for enslaved people and reminds that their status as a slave was one forced upon them and continually so rather than the simple status they were born with.

It’s not a huge problem or anything, but it isn’t hard to toss in every now and then and only does good.

Small suggestion to use “enslaved people’s” rather than “slaves”

One of us has a morally defensible position backed with historical examples of similar events and the other doesn’t know how to even recognize a genocide is happening before his very eyes. That’s really the crux of the whole thing. You simply don’t see the wholesale slaughter of brown people as a genocide. My argument relies entirely on the moral backbone that opposing genocide is righteous. Your argument is to refuse your own eyes.

If that was your family, born behind a wall and then bombed to hell, I bet you would have a different tune. Sadly for people like you with no moral philosophy whatsoever, having no empathy for people experiencing things you don’t is pretty normal. It’s why Nazi Germany was able to do what it did. It’s why south Africa got away with what it did. It’s why the native Americans were genocided as they were. And it’s why right at this moment you fence sit a slaughter.

Of course it’s terrorism. But there is a difference between an all powerful state committing terrorism on people it doesn’t have to, and a people committing terrorism on their occupiers and genocides after having literally every other option of fighting back being removed.

You’ll nod your head to JFKs quote “those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable” and then sit on the fence when the inevitable happens. Acting like both sides are in the wrong when one side, the one with power in the situation committed to actions that everyone always knew would lead to this. I blame Israel for the death of its civilians due to palastinian terrorism.

Same as I do with the polish Warsaw ghetto uprising.

Same as I do with the IRA.

Same as I do with native American uprisings.

History is filled with noble causes resulting to terrorism due to the complete lack of any other options. It’s not great. It’s not cool. It fuckin sucks. But at the end of the day, it is ALWAYS the fault of the oppressor. Every time. Always.

While a funny quip, states are capable of terrorism. See Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Dresden, the blitz. Ya know I was hoping I would off the top of my head remember more than just WW2 examples, but here we are. I mean, besides Israel at the moment but that’s the topic so doesn’t really fit to the list.

Pretty normal to call a state that commits genocide a Nazi state as that’s the thing the Nazis did. That and the race mixing laws. Don’t forget it’s illegal to race mix in Israel. Ethno state, famously also a Nazi thing. This isn’t hyperbole, it’s a pretty direct comparison.

And the Nazis had a point or two as well didn’t they? Let’s break down the pros and cons of genocide, let’s not be so hasty to judge.

Unlike you, I don’t need to wait for historians to reach a consensus on the evils of my time.

Oh no, let me understand the perspective of people bombing civilians to cause them to lose faith in the local militia group for the sake of colonization and conquest. I’m sure they have a good reason.

What else do you call the bombing of civilians.

Fun fact. It is illegal in most cases to marry outside your culture in Israel. Basically illegal to race mix, though more complicated than that. Also Israel does not recognize gay marriage. I don’t care if Lebanon has worse rules. We don’t call an apartheid state valid for being at 1900 Jim Crow standards .