#anyway I found out that 'reichblr' is a thing today and blocked that tag. disgusting

[sixty-silver-wishes]

so I typically think DNI's are pointless because not everyone will see them and they're often performative, but I don't want to interact with anyone who denies or justifies historical or current manmade atrocities, such as genocide, colonialism, slavery, ethnic cleansing, etc. I've had arguments with these sorts of people before in the past and I don't want to have them again.

Examples of rhetoric I will not tolerate:

"The Great Purges and Holodomor were good because they helped advance Soviet industrialization"

Yes, this one specifically. This is mainly where I take issue with Marxist-Leninists and Stalin apologists, and the main argument I have seen in my time researching Soviet history.

"X group of people who were targeted in the Holocaust deserves more pity and attention than Y group of people"/"People focus too much on X group of atrocity victims"

This goes for any atrocity, but this argument is often seen regarding the Holocaust, as it targeted multiple different demographics of people. Yes, the impact of the Holocaust on Jewish victims is more extensively documented than on Roma or queer victims (not to mention that in many cases, different identities can overlap), but that doesn't mean that Jewish victims are focused on "too much."

"Saying X was an atrocity is just propaganda for Y group of people, political ideology, or country"

Again, I see this frequently with Soviet atrocities, with the Holodomor and Purges often dismissed as "Western-" or "Ukrainian propaganda." I've seen people dismiss the modern genocide taking place in Xinjiang, China against Uighur Muslims as "anti-CCP propaganda," and dismissal of US slavery of Africans and African Americans as "anti-American propaganda." All of these events have been extensively researched and documented, and the people who decide what's true and what's "propaganda" in this case are typically picking and choosing what they want to hear.

"X was bad, but the people it was targeting deserved it"

No. Nobody deserves to be the target of a large-scale atrocity. It doesn't matter if you disagree with someone's religion or politics. This is not justification for atrocities.

"X never happened and is just a way for Y group of people to get pity"

This is the most blatant form of atrocity denial, but still a frequent one.

"X is bad, but what about what your country/group of people did?"

ALL ATROCITIES ARE BAD. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE CALLED ATROCITIES.

"X is not considered a genocide, so therefore it didn't happen/wasn't that bad/etc"

Using the example of the Holodomor again, there is heavy academic debate on whether or not it is considered a genocide by the UN's definition of the term. Due to this I refer to the Holodomor as an "atrocity," because while it was not specifically designed with the intention of killing Ukrainians and Kazakhs, and its primary goal was, like much of the events of Stalin's political and cultural aims, to increase industrial production by diverting agricultural yields to major Russian cities, it was still a manmade famine that resulted in thousands of deaths of people, primarily of these specific ethnic groups. The Holodomor was a consequence not just of Stalin's industrialization campaigns, but of a history of anti-Ukrainian oppression that predated the Soviet Union. The fact that it is not officially considered a genocide by the UN does not diminish the destruction of human life and culture that it resulted in. Same with Belgium's actions in the Congo; this is also not officially considered a genocide, but it doesn't mean that Belgium was in any way blameless for killing and mutilating Congolese people due to racism and greed.