narwhal

No need to resort to imagination with a real verifiable genocide.

Genocides are real things, so it's important we reliably identify them with factual evidence, not falling for atrocity propaganda. Incorrectly identifying something as genocide is irresponsible much like denying a case of genocide that is actually taking place.

Where is the evidence? This article is an interview showing two people telling stories, one of which is selling a book, just like Yeonmi Park.
I can too volunteer for an interview as I tell how Greenland is genociding left handed people. But nobody will ever want to pay me for that.

The people that try to equate fake genocide with real genocide are like the school staff punishing bully and victim alike. They are enabling the abuses. Also it must be deeply insulting to the real victims in gaza.

The world cares about what they do to other nations, not to themselves. Crazy gun policies? Slave labour in prisons? Your problem. Military expansionism, cripling economic sanctions, political inference? Very much our problem. That did't change.

I think your capacity to think is irrelevant or even played against you when the elites pour obscene amounts of money to change your perception of reality. Even the greatest minds can't escape this.

Even if people realize the system they live in is called liberal democracy, not just democracy, they often fail to notice that said system is an implementation of a plutocracy, not a democracy.

Top can work too, but much less effective.

"The white conservatives aren't friends of the Negro either, but they at least don't try to hide it. They are like wolves; they show their teeth in a snarl that keeps the Negro always aware of where he stands with them. But the white liberals are foxes, who also show their teeth to the Negro but pretend that they are smiling. The white liberals are more dangerous than the conservatives; they lure the Negro, and as the Negro runs from the growling wolf, he flees into the open jaws of the "smiling" fox." - Malcom X

I read and I believe I understood your points. The problem is no one actually used the argument you are trying to oppose. You interpreted that comment too literally. Not once they said that no seen corpses meant no deaths. Had you not assumed so wildly and acted so bluntly, you'd be understood better. You can block me If this is annoying you.

The fact is there is hard evidence for a genocide in one case, and not in the other. If you have other reasons to believe the latter is still happening, then make them known. Otherwise it is no more plausible than telling elephants may dwell on the moon, despite no sightings.

I'm not the one calling valid observations dumb arguments.