Kamala Harris VP pick Governor Tim Walz is being accused of anti-Semitism because his master's thesis on the Holocaust said it was not unique and should be taught as one of
Sure whatever you want to believe, I gave up on this thread having any sort of constructive argument or insight. Didn’t even have to be valuable insight, but there’s nothing here to be found.
I disagree with the premise, the Holocaust was unique.
You lost the crowd immediately. The thrust of Walz’ position is that people should be more aware of the ubiquity of genocidal thinking, and in your first sentence, you put yourself in opposition to him.
Even though you agree with Walz later in spirit, the immediate impression is that you’re downplaying other genocides by over-fixating on the shock and horror of this one in particular, and it takes you way too long to clear up your position.
If you had phrased this as “added context” or “an additional fun fact” or “some ways in which the holocaust was unique,” it becomes much harder to disagree with you. Your audience isn’t primed immediately to be angry, and you beget much more charitability, at least from those who aren’t insane.
I understand that now, my phrasing was poor and I also didn’t make it clear that I was trying to engage with the comment and underline the missing nuance and not with the conversation about walz, although i was also missing some nuance in my comment I agree.
You lost the crowd immediately
Yeah going back I can see that most didn’t make it past the first two sentences, that is on me. I guess after the first answers I was just angry people were unwilling to engage with the content of my comment, so I wasn’t able to see my own shortcomings without you pointing me at them.
I appreciate the insight and the kindness of encouraging me to reflect that instead of just piling on. Thank you!
Sure whatever you want to believe, I gave up on this thread having any sort of constructive argument or insight. Didn’t even have to be valuable insight, but there’s nothing here to be found.
Okay so, this is a rhetoric problem.
This phrase here:
You lost the crowd immediately. The thrust of Walz’ position is that people should be more aware of the ubiquity of genocidal thinking, and in your first sentence, you put yourself in opposition to him.
Even though you agree with Walz later in spirit, the immediate impression is that you’re downplaying other genocides by over-fixating on the shock and horror of this one in particular, and it takes you way too long to clear up your position.
If you had phrased this as “added context” or “an additional fun fact” or “some ways in which the holocaust was unique,” it becomes much harder to disagree with you. Your audience isn’t primed immediately to be angry, and you beget much more charitability, at least from those who aren’t insane.
I understand that now, my phrasing was poor and I also didn’t make it clear that I was trying to engage with the comment and underline the missing nuance and not with the conversation about walz, although i was also missing some nuance in my comment I agree.
Yeah going back I can see that most didn’t make it past the first two sentences, that is on me. I guess after the first answers I was just angry people were unwilling to engage with the content of my comment, so I wasn’t able to see my own shortcomings without you pointing me at them.
I appreciate the insight and the kindness of encouraging me to reflect that instead of just piling on. Thank you!