528
submitted 7 months ago by Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

The most famous forms of Holocaust denial and revisionism tend to focus on Jews, casting doubt, for example, on how many were exterminated in the camps. But denying the impact the Nazis had on the other groups they targeted, including queer and trans people, disabled people and Romani people, is still Holocaust denial. Maybe someone should tell J.K. Rowling.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 77 points 7 months ago

It's almost like conservatives are vile, grotesque garbage-based life forms who thrive on the misery and death of others.

Conservatism is a plague long overdue for a cure.

[-] Lath@kbin.earth 6 points 7 months ago

Conservative are also the people looking to save various fauna and flora from extinction due to unbridled human activities.
Are they also a plague?

You should avoid bringing negative connotations to words that can be or are a force for good.
Rename the evil if you want, but don't turn away the good as you focus solely on the bad.

[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 126 points 7 months ago

Conservative are also the people looking to save various fauna and flora from extinction

No. "Conservative" and "conservationist" are two very different words with two very different definitions. You seem to be confusing the two.

[-] Leviathan@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Oh! I thought they were referring to hunters or something.

[-] Lath@kbin.earth 2 points 7 months ago

You're partially right. I am confusing the two, but not the spirit of their meaning, which is "to conserve". Conservation is a force for good, but this political party thing is only focused on the bad.
Why let it occupy the entire meaning and overshadow its better uses? To say "Conservative" with disgust is to ignore its potential for better uses.

[-] entity@infosec.pub 80 points 7 months ago

Why change things when you can argue semantics?

[-] Lath@kbin.earth 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

This is about changing things. But we're talking about different things to change it seems.
And yes, semantics.

[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 25 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I appreciate that there has been some confusion regarding the use of this word. And I also appreciate your sentiment that it would be nice to focus on the positive. However, so much evil throughout history has come from conservatism, that the word weighs heavily with negative connotation that should not be removed.

In social context, nothing good in the history of mankind has ever come from conservatism. Nothing at all.

Here is a non-political definition, for some clarification. Note the lack of preservation of nature.

conservative /kən-sûr′və-tĭv/ adjective

Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change. Traditional or restrained in style.
"a conservative dark suit."
Moderate; cautious.
"a conservative estimate."

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik

(My apologies for the American dictionary reference in a thread about an English person. It was just the easiest one to copy/paste on a phone.)

[-] Lath@kbin.earth 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Moderate; cautious.

Yes, these are my thoughts on the word's meaning, in large.

A moderate and cautious approach to change.

Absolute refusal of change is the extremism part of this definition that seems to be viewed as its defining attribute instead.

Edit: Maybe this view of mine is flawed, but it's how I see a Conservative party should be. To avoid unchecked progress, maintain stability and implement only rigorously verified policies, in small, but certain steps. Their core tenets are moderation and cautiousness.

[-] Dasus@lemmy.world 27 points 7 months ago

Their core tenets are moderation and cautiousness.

Lol no

Viewing words that prescriptively is kinda insane and willfully ignorant.

When someone says "gay", do you start arguing about how "it has nothing to do with sexuality, it just means carefree', 'cheerful', or 'bright and showy'."?

Cmon. Cmon. CMON

[-] Lath@kbin.earth 1 points 7 months ago

It means both. And both meanings started as positive, then one meaning became the focus and the other completely ignored.

That's what you should be upset about.

[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 14 points 7 months ago

Fair enough. If politically conservative people legislated with a moderate, cautious demeanor, I would respect that. In fact, I might even side with them on several policies.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago

A moderate and cautious approach to change.

What would the moderate and cautious approach have been to gain independence from colonialists?

What would the moderate and cautious approach have been to ending slavery?

What would the moderate and cautious approach have been to giving workers basic rights?

[-] Lath@kbin.earth 1 points 7 months ago
  • Shore up the defenses, create logistics trains, be certain of the allies available, initiate battle when ready and after all diplomatic recourses have failed.

  • Have a standing replacement framework, compensate losses, ratify laws to support equal rights in its entirety, reduce support of transgressors in public eyes over time. There were few slave owners. Turning the masses against them wouldn't have been difficult.

  • Prepare alternative replacement in case of refusal, then support unionizing while giving subsidies to encourage participation.

Ideally, it's supposed to advance slowly while keeping everyone relatively happy and stable.
A government is supposed to consider all of its citizens and that means taking into consideration the consequences of failure, while also planning how to remedy them.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago

I'm sorry... are you actually going against revolutions against colonial powers?

And if turning the masses against slave owners wouldn't have been difficult, why did a war have to be fought over it?

[-] Lath@kbin.earth 1 points 7 months ago

You asked for a moderate and cautious approach. I gave you an example of one.
If you draw from this more than what it is, then that's on you, not me.

The war in the US at least was fought due to a poor approach on the subject.
The UK, at the very least if anything, managed to end slavery peacefully on its soil.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

Britain has not ended slavery. And when it technically outlawed slavery within the British Isles (which is actually all the anti slavery laws did), it was neither a moderate nor a cautious approach.

But, more importantly, there is still slavery in Britain:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_the_United_Kingdom

Britain didn't even end slavery in the 19th century either. They just changed the term to 'indentured servitude' and 'blackbirding.'

So it wasn't ended peacefully because it wasn't ended.

Also, the idea that you even should end slavery gradually is pretty offensive to all of the people enslaved throughout history. Would you be comfortable saying to them, "you won't be freed, but we're ending this eventually because it's a gradual process."

[-] Lath@kbin.earth 1 points 7 months ago

Yes, it should be done gradually.
What did the former slaves in the US have after they were freed? Nothing.
Food, clothing, housing are burdens we can't afford even now. Did you expect them to magically appear out of thin air once the slaves were freed?

You want everything to be done now, on the spot, a fair and just world for everyone. How nice of you. But do you have the resources? The infrastructure? The personnel?
You think that everyone will without a doubt respect everyone and everything without enough basic necessities to go around?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

Weird, that wasn't an issue for freeing Holocaust victims.

Or should the closing of Treblinka been cautious and casual?

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago

The big problem about discussing conservatives / Conservatives here is that this board seems quite US-focused. The British Conservative Party (the current party of UK government) pretty much came in to existence back in the day to “conserve” things and put a check on “progressive / liberal” policies. Conservative means something different whether your context is American-politics or whether it’s politics-politics.

[-] Leviathan@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago

I think context is more important and in this context disgust is the correct emotion.

[-] Lath@kbin.earth 2 points 7 months ago

I've found that context matters little when emotion takes precedence.

[-] Leviathan@lemmy.world 19 points 7 months ago

So which of your emotions made you ignore the context?

[-] Lath@kbin.earth 1 points 7 months ago
[-] Leviathan@lemmy.world 14 points 7 months ago

Well time to pack up the pity party, Lath. There's context to consider.

[-] Lath@kbin.earth 1 points 7 months ago

Nah. Context rarely matters.

[-] frunch@lemmy.world 15 points 7 months ago

Conservative is yet another word that's been commandeered to the ends of the right wing. They have a long history of distorting or outright willfully misinterpreting words and symbols. Their use of the punisher logo is a classic example

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] suodrazah@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago

Oh my fuck, clearly the context is lost on you.

[-] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago

To believe "conservative" branded political parties are conflated with the English connotations of the word is quite frankly falling for propaganda at this point. Politically speaking "conservative" has a unique meaning that has nothing really to do with financial prudence or slow and measured progress. What they seek to "conserve" is old power structures. Heirachies founded on intergenerational wealth or old exclusionary policy that created privileged citizen classes. Sometimes they dress it up in the mask of "traditional values" but it's all basically just smoke and mirrors. It's why they attack inclusive policy, civil rights fights including education policies, social safety nets and tax policies that target wealthier citizens. They have to "conserve" the pecking order where old money remains uncontested power, new money casts the illusion that upward mobility it possible and nobody is allowed to mention that they are being treated as a second class citizen.

The idea of self branding yourself a "conservative" serves by flattering ones own ego because as a label it's primed to make one feel reasonable and measured... But. It's just fluff.

[-] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 15 points 7 months ago

Lol bro really doesn’t know the difference between conservatives and conservationists.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago

even if they were the same word... context has meaning.

in a politics news sub, talking about politics; you'd have to be a moron to conflate conservatives [individuals who espouse conservative politics] with something else.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] TIMMAY@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

sheesh you have thoroughly drunk the kool aid, wake up

[-] Grass@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 months ago

This makes me think of that woman who was insistent that she was not a musician because she makes music, not magic

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

That’s conservationists. Different word, different meaning, and most importantly different people for the most part

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Hey can everyone please assume good faith. This is an easy enough mistake to make if you are ESL.

this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2024
528 points (100.0% liked)

News

23297 readers
4810 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS