Yeeaah man, Holocaust with a capital H always refers to the mass killing of Jews during WWII. With a lowercase h, sure, it can mean "widespread destruction by fire"—but that’s not the context here, and you damn well know it.
Omg, how much of a pretentious intellectual are you? You really just hit me with the "Well, actually, according to …
Yeeaah man, Holocaust with a capital H always refers to the mass killing of Jews during WWII. With a lowercase h, sure, it can mean "widespread destruction by fire"—but that’s not the context here, and you damn well know it.
Omg, how much of a pretentious intellectual are you? You really just hit me with the "Well, actually, according to Webster’s Dictionary..." argument? Big words, empty brain.
You know what the funniest part is? I’m not even right-wing. I’m actually quite socialist on most things. What I don’t give a fuck about is this social justice and victimhood mentality that turns every conflict into a competition for who suffers the most.
And here’s another fun fact: I don’t even give a fuck about Israel or the Palestinians. What I do enjoy is mocking pseudo-intellectuals who think googling a dictionary definition is some kind of power move.
You're calling huey a pretentious pseudo-intellectual, and it's you who have decided that it is only "Holocaust with a capital H [that] refers to the mass killing of Jews during WWII?" So no matter what Israel does to the Palestinians, it's not a Holocaust, because the Palestinians aren't Jews, and this isn't WWII? And it's not a holocaust, because it's not "widespread destruction by fire?" And to reconfirm, it's huey who's a pretentious pseudo-intellectual.
Yes, exactly. They cannot commit "The Holocaust" because it is a strictly defined historical event. Trying to apply it elsewhere doesn't make sense—it’s stupid and lazy.
I don’t understand this constant offloading of emotionally charged historical events onto every conflict. Not every tragedy needs to be "The Next Holocaust." If you want to call it something impactful, use the right terms. Call it genocide, call it ethnic cleansing, call it mass expulsion, or even "Gaza Genocide 2023–2025" if you want to put a timestamp on it.
And if we’re being completely honest, this isn’t even the worst genocide happening right now. As far as I know, there are far worse atrocities currently unfolding, but this one just happens to have the biggest spotlight at the moment.
That being said, I honestly don’t care much—the whole Middle East could vanish tomorrow, and it wouldn’t change my life in any meaningful way. I’m just trying to understand events, and in the process, I’ve found a lot of things absolutely stupid. It’s actually intriguing to observe. When I see stupidity, I challenge it—simple as that.
And this? This has nothing to do with the Holocaust. Pulling out some dictionary response, where you cherry-pick the third definition just to justify your argument—when you know damn well that "Holocaust" with a capital H refers to a specific, enclosed, self-contained historical event—is just peak intellectual dishonesty.
Well, you certainly present some topics for conversation. You mentioned WWII, but you said there can only be one "Holocaust." If we already had WWI, how can we call the first half of the '40s WWII? Don't you insist someone find a different name for that? (WWI was said at the time to have been "the war to end all wars." It didn't do that. So don't you require at least that we find a different name for any subsequent war affecting most or all of the world?)
Oh, you want to be "completely honest." Good. What's going on that's worse than what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians? Please be specific. What the Russians are trying to do to the Ukraine is bad, too, but I'm not sure which one you think is worse.
You're a curious person. You spend a lot of time and effort talking about things you repeatedly say you don't care about.
And you have still failed to answer the question about who's the pretentious pseudo-intellectual, and how you decide/know. Do you think that inconsistently trying to make rules about terminology, not seemingly knowing what you're talking about, and engaging in a discourse about something you don't care about, instead of watching cartoons on TV, make you a serious, non-pretentious, genuine intellectual? You seem slightly better at dancing, or providing songs and dances, than you are at debating, but I don't think that's a reflection of intellect.
You can tell me if there's something you think I've misunderstood.
Dude, this whole argument is built on historical nonsense. WWII and the Holocaust are not the same type of event. WWI and WWII are global wars, involving multiple nations, fought for political, territorial, and ideological reasons. They are part of a chronological sequence, which is why WWI was called the Great War until WWII happened, and the need to distinguish them arose. That’s why the names evolved.
The Holocaust, on the other hand, was not a war, not a movement, not part of a sequence—it was an enclosed, specific event. A state-organized, industrialized genocide targeting Jews, along with Romani, disabled people, and other groups. It wasn’t just "mass killing"; it was an entire bureaucratic machine built for extermination. That’s why it stands as a unique historical event, not just another example of mass violence.
If historical naming conventions worked the way you're implying, then we’d have "The Armenian Holocaust," "The Rwandan Holocaust," or "The Ukrainian Holocaust." But we don’t. Because history doesn’t work that way.
Now, you’re asking what’s worse than Gaza. Sudan. There are reports of women making death pacts to avoid being raped and executed. Tigray, Myanmar, North Korea—all still committing mass atrocities. South Sudan—famine is being used as a weapon. Then we have the Uyghurs in China, subjected to genocide on a much grander scale—forced labor, sterilization, mass internment, and organ harvesting. This isn’t speculation—it’s documented. An entire ethnic group is being systemically erased, their bodies quite literally used for profit.
Yet, somehow, none of these dominate headlines like Gaza. The idea that this is the worst ongoing humanitarian crisis is factually false.
Then there’s the argument that discussing something means personal investment. No. Understanding an event, analyzing it, and calling out factual errors has nothing to do with emotional involvement. Facts don’t require emotional weight to be correct. If something is historically inaccurate, it’s inaccurate. That’s it.
If Israel’s actions need to be condemned, use the right terminology. Call it genocide, ethnic cleansing, mass expulsion—terms that fit. But forcing the term "Holocaust" into the discussion is a blatant distortion of history. If the goal is to highlight Gaza’s suffering, historical accuracy would do a better job than sensationalism.
huey, I don't know you or Mr Krisko, nor anything about either of you, except your output that I read here. It's also worth noting that according Mr Krisko, he also bothers to read and opine about, and share his opinions, things about which he "[doesn't] even give a fuck." I just want to understand his system for categorizing which people are pretentious pseudo-intellectuals, and which people are not. Is it what they say? Is it their style of writing? I have to admit that on the surface, I would have said he got it the wrong way around. But he hasn't explained how he decides who is, to put it a certain way, hopelessly full of shit. I do hope he'll help us understand his system. I want to be able to identify why you're a pretentious pseudo-intellectual, and he's a well-intended and genuine intellectual.
This is not about being an intellectual. It's about reading good writing, if you want to, reacting by forming opinions, if you want to, and participating in a conversation, if you want to. There's plenty of room for disagreement, if and when it occurs, without insult.
If I were you, I would ignore what he says. As he pointed out, he doesn't even care about this issue. He just likes to hear himself talk, or read his own writing.
Yeeaah man, Holocaust with a capital H always refers to the mass killing of Jews during WWII. With a lowercase h, sure, it can mean "widespread destruction by fire"—but that’s not the context here, and you damn well know it.
Omg, how much of a pretentious intellectual are you? You really just hit me with the "Well, actually, according to Webster’s Dictionary..." argument? Big words, empty brain.
You know what the funniest part is? I’m not even right-wing. I’m actually quite socialist on most things. What I don’t give a fuck about is this social justice and victimhood mentality that turns every conflict into a competition for who suffers the most.
And here’s another fun fact: I don’t even give a fuck about Israel or the Palestinians. What I do enjoy is mocking pseudo-intellectuals who think googling a dictionary definition is some kind of power move.
You're calling huey a pretentious pseudo-intellectual, and it's you who have decided that it is only "Holocaust with a capital H [that] refers to the mass killing of Jews during WWII?" So no matter what Israel does to the Palestinians, it's not a Holocaust, because the Palestinians aren't Jews, and this isn't WWII? And it's not a holocaust, because it's not "widespread destruction by fire?" And to reconfirm, it's huey who's a pretentious pseudo-intellectual.
Yes, exactly. They cannot commit "The Holocaust" because it is a strictly defined historical event. Trying to apply it elsewhere doesn't make sense—it’s stupid and lazy.
I don’t understand this constant offloading of emotionally charged historical events onto every conflict. Not every tragedy needs to be "The Next Holocaust." If you want to call it something impactful, use the right terms. Call it genocide, call it ethnic cleansing, call it mass expulsion, or even "Gaza Genocide 2023–2025" if you want to put a timestamp on it.
And if we’re being completely honest, this isn’t even the worst genocide happening right now. As far as I know, there are far worse atrocities currently unfolding, but this one just happens to have the biggest spotlight at the moment.
That being said, I honestly don’t care much—the whole Middle East could vanish tomorrow, and it wouldn’t change my life in any meaningful way. I’m just trying to understand events, and in the process, I’ve found a lot of things absolutely stupid. It’s actually intriguing to observe. When I see stupidity, I challenge it—simple as that.
And this? This has nothing to do with the Holocaust. Pulling out some dictionary response, where you cherry-pick the third definition just to justify your argument—when you know damn well that "Holocaust" with a capital H refers to a specific, enclosed, self-contained historical event—is just peak intellectual dishonesty.
Well, you certainly present some topics for conversation. You mentioned WWII, but you said there can only be one "Holocaust." If we already had WWI, how can we call the first half of the '40s WWII? Don't you insist someone find a different name for that? (WWI was said at the time to have been "the war to end all wars." It didn't do that. So don't you require at least that we find a different name for any subsequent war affecting most or all of the world?)
Oh, you want to be "completely honest." Good. What's going on that's worse than what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians? Please be specific. What the Russians are trying to do to the Ukraine is bad, too, but I'm not sure which one you think is worse.
You're a curious person. You spend a lot of time and effort talking about things you repeatedly say you don't care about.
And you have still failed to answer the question about who's the pretentious pseudo-intellectual, and how you decide/know. Do you think that inconsistently trying to make rules about terminology, not seemingly knowing what you're talking about, and engaging in a discourse about something you don't care about, instead of watching cartoons on TV, make you a serious, non-pretentious, genuine intellectual? You seem slightly better at dancing, or providing songs and dances, than you are at debating, but I don't think that's a reflection of intellect.
You can tell me if there's something you think I've misunderstood.
Dude, this whole argument is built on historical nonsense. WWII and the Holocaust are not the same type of event. WWI and WWII are global wars, involving multiple nations, fought for political, territorial, and ideological reasons. They are part of a chronological sequence, which is why WWI was called the Great War until WWII happened, and the need to distinguish them arose. That’s why the names evolved.
The Holocaust, on the other hand, was not a war, not a movement, not part of a sequence—it was an enclosed, specific event. A state-organized, industrialized genocide targeting Jews, along with Romani, disabled people, and other groups. It wasn’t just "mass killing"; it was an entire bureaucratic machine built for extermination. That’s why it stands as a unique historical event, not just another example of mass violence.
If historical naming conventions worked the way you're implying, then we’d have "The Armenian Holocaust," "The Rwandan Holocaust," or "The Ukrainian Holocaust." But we don’t. Because history doesn’t work that way.
Now, you’re asking what’s worse than Gaza. Sudan. There are reports of women making death pacts to avoid being raped and executed. Tigray, Myanmar, North Korea—all still committing mass atrocities. South Sudan—famine is being used as a weapon. Then we have the Uyghurs in China, subjected to genocide on a much grander scale—forced labor, sterilization, mass internment, and organ harvesting. This isn’t speculation—it’s documented. An entire ethnic group is being systemically erased, their bodies quite literally used for profit.
Yet, somehow, none of these dominate headlines like Gaza. The idea that this is the worst ongoing humanitarian crisis is factually false.
Then there’s the argument that discussing something means personal investment. No. Understanding an event, analyzing it, and calling out factual errors has nothing to do with emotional involvement. Facts don’t require emotional weight to be correct. If something is historically inaccurate, it’s inaccurate. That’s it.
If Israel’s actions need to be condemned, use the right terminology. Call it genocide, ethnic cleansing, mass expulsion—terms that fit. But forcing the term "Holocaust" into the discussion is a blatant distortion of history. If the goal is to highlight Gaza’s suffering, historical accuracy would do a better job than sensationalism.
It sounds like you've explained this to yourself to your complete satisfaction.
Have a very nice day.
Right on Mr. Jonas ...I hate these pompus know it alls.
Its sad this guy actually thinks he's an intellectual
giant.
huey, I don't know you or Mr Krisko, nor anything about either of you, except your output that I read here. It's also worth noting that according Mr Krisko, he also bothers to read and opine about, and share his opinions, things about which he "[doesn't] even give a fuck." I just want to understand his system for categorizing which people are pretentious pseudo-intellectuals, and which people are not. Is it what they say? Is it their style of writing? I have to admit that on the surface, I would have said he got it the wrong way around. But he hasn't explained how he decides who is, to put it a certain way, hopelessly full of shit. I do hope he'll help us understand his system. I want to be able to identify why you're a pretentious pseudo-intellectual, and he's a well-intended and genuine intellectual.
I never even thought of myself as an intellectual.
He complements me with the title although it was
meant sarcastically. Who is perfect ? I'm like that
amond joy commercial"some days I feel like a nut".
No offense, but you mean compliments and almond.
This is not about being an intellectual. It's about reading good writing, if you want to, reacting by forming opinions, if you want to, and participating in a conversation, if you want to. There's plenty of room for disagreement, if and when it occurs, without insult.
If I were you, I would ignore what he says. As he pointed out, he doesn't even care about this issue. He just likes to hear himself talk, or read his own writing.
Thank you..