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 …
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.
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.