And so we see the fascist/pseudo-fascist/fascist-in-denial pussyfooting around their intentions to bamboozle the neo-liberal mods who just want to maintain the status quo anyway.

You always hide behind vagaries instead of making a real point. Maybe it's a problem with abstract thinking.

And lol @ "neoliberal mods" you non-thinking buzzword-repeating hayseed.

From someone who obfuscates with specifics to prevent uncomfortable comparisons that doesn't mean much.

I see someone can't pick up on tongue-in-cheek.

well when you call me a Holocaust denier you should either be able to find at least one example of something I'm denying or being ahistorical about or else find a better analogy. I don't think that's being too pedantic... You're just once again misusing a term.

No you are being pedantic. You wouldn't deny the Jewish Holocaust in the same way you would the Native American Holocaust because they are two different historical occurrences with two different histories. The Jewish Holocaust is so obvious and still fresh that one simply has to be a conspiracy theorist to deny it, whereas the Native American Holocaust started as an accident, so you can throw that up to trivialize the entire thing to begin with (which you did), and wasn't a centralized plan so you can be vague about what you consider to be genocide and what was just unfortunate history or just gloss over the whole damn thing since the specifics aren't common knowledge to most people even in America (you so far have chosen to gloss over while not being so stupid as to pretend nothing happened but since going down the specifics rabbit hole would mean pages upon pages of potential obfuscation that nobody casually posting on an internet forum wants to go down you still leave yourself open to be vague about what's genocide and what's just embarrassing but still forgivable as a country).

Exactly.

in both cases it would involve actually denying the genocide or some aspect of it, otherwise denier is simply the wrong charge to make.

I didn't say it started as an accident, only that the vast majority of the body count was through the spread of disease. That's a relevant fact to me in judging the scale of the genocide, not whether there was a genocide. I brought it up because many people don't know that and most people speak as if it's not true. I think you see it as trivializing because you recognize instinctively that people catching diseases doesn't look as nefarious as rape and pillage, and you would just assume gloss over anything that has that affect.

No, since the ultimate objective is the same. To cast off moral responsibility so that your respective cultures can retain pride and moral high ground. You are in fact the American version of a German Holocaust denier.

Literally makes no difference unless Europeans sailed to the Americas specifically to spread disease.

When you brazenly open the entire discussion with "I'm done being guilty about" you are most definitely trivializing. Especially when you make no attempt to asterisk your point by explaining what Europeans actually are guilty of and what you think that means concerning the history of the Americas and the United States.

I mean as if you don't know exactly what you're doing.

except being a "denier" isn't the only way to "cast off moral responsibility," it's one particular method that specifically involves revisionist history.

Truth be told, I don't care about "moral high ground" on a national level. This country has plenty of sins. I think it's a gross exaggeration that it's somehow worse than Nazi Germany, but yea.



actually I said "I'm done crying for...." and the reason given was that they were "wasting the continent."

Yes that comment was trivializing and was intended as such. It wasn't intended 100% seriously though.
actually I did at one point make the distinction that obviously the raping, pillaging, and other forms of overt violence and intentional displacement wasn't justified.