If You Hear Yourself Saying One of These Eight Phrases Please Consider Just Shutting Up

Mike,

Pretty much nothing compares to the "Holocaust". Over 6 MILLION men, women and CHILDREN, died. To compare anything to the Holocaust serves only to diminish what it really was.

Advise? ............. don't go there.

IMHO you can "go there" but you shouldn't.

You can because you're not comparing the holocaust to anything and you're not seeking to subtly deny it or it's weight.

You shouldn't because the two events are unrelated. If Israelis are justifying their present day actions against the Palestinians with the holocaust that should be addressed by itself, because it's a bull@!$%# argument. But so is implying that someone does if that person has not.

Canceling "Arrested Development" -- THAT was as bad as the holocaust.

- J

Stalin killed over three times as many Russians as Hitler did Jews.

The Russian purge was much worse than the Holocaust. 20 million people killed is a conservative estimate of Stalin's damage.

And, unfortunately, Jewish people do use the Holocaust as some sort of rationalization for the illegal occupation of Palestinian land, and the mistreatment they deliver to them. (I say "illegal", because if you look up the definition of "occupied territory", there's nothing legal about that term.)

Anyway, we could go on for hours about the causes of Middle East tension, the legality of Israeli occupation, the Briton's redrawing of borders, or we could not.

But if you're looking for an event that was much worse than the Holocaust, look no further than the Russian purge.

This is true!

We forget about the purge and starvation of the Russian people (I know I did.).

I guess the horror of the gas chambers and the pictures of the dead and half dead make the Holocaust seem so much worse.

But, over 20 million people did die under Stalin's rule. He was truly a vicious man.

Perhaps because the Russians were our allies in the 2nd World War and were instrumental in defeating the Nazis, our history has buried the deadly Russian purge.

Thanks for the history lesson Mike.

Because until an event happend that is worse than the Holocaust than to refer to something as a holocaust is cheapening its meaning.

Hold on a moment. I see where this is going but I want to make a point here. "Worse" isn't just about body counts. It's crass to even talk about this but it has to be said: comparing the Soviet purges or Mao's Cultural Revolution to the Holocaust is a little difficult because of the very different natures of what went on.

Stalin and Mao sought to kill people that they disagreed with. The starvation of the Ukraine was bad under Stalin, but there's more to the Holocaust than just gas chambers and crematoria.

The Holocaust is about dehumanization. It is terror, power, control, manipulation, turning - not just the apparatus of the state - but the people themselves into a brutal killing machine and using that machine to exterminate a people.

The Holocaust hits home for us - and by us I mean westerners - because Nazi Germany was not so very far from what we are today: scientific, sophisticated, advanced, a dominant world power. In a word: modernist.

But it also hits home because of how throughly the Nazis destroyed the Jewish people - not just in killing them, but in killing who and what they were. The Ukranians were starved to death and the casualties of Mao's revolution had it pretty bad too - but the Holocaust was of a different character.

Which is not to say that we haven't see similar horrors in the world. Rwanda is one such example. I do not intend to diminish the sufferings of the Russian and Chinese peoples in this clarification but merely to point out that the crimes of the Nazi regime stretched far beyond mere murder.

And the Russian purges and Chinese cultural revolution were also about dehumanization, terror, power, control, and manipulation.

Human beings were turned into workhorses. They were used up, dehydrated, starved, worked to the bone, bled, blistered, and then thrown out like garbage when they died.

I have a hard time believing that that kind of death is less gruesome than a gas chamber.

Because until an event happend that is worse than the Holocaust than to refer to something as a holocaust is cheapening its meaning.

First of all, I wouldn't simply use body count as a metric for "holocaust-worthiness" (are we really having this conversation?), but more importantly, "holocaust" is a general term, whose ... proper-ization (anyone know the word for this?) was used to describe the Nazi holocaust.

As such, I don't think we really need any event to be worse than the Holocaust to be called a holocaust. Case in point, I consider the rape of Nanking a holocaust (lowercase "h"), though hardly equivalent to the Holocaust (capital "h").

Human beings were turned into workhorses. They were used up, dehydrated, starved, worked to the bone, bled, blistered, and then thrown out like garbage when they died.

Hold on a minute, there. I don't know much about Russia's purges, but my parents and my mother's parents experienced the "back to farms" workhorsing of the Cultural Revolution firsthand -- my father to a farm commune, my mother to a factory workfloor. It was hard and grueling, but hardly the bleeding dry of humanity.

(The Long March, on the other hand, which my grandfather participated in, was hell on Earth)

All of which is true, but the systems of persecution behind it were ideological. I've studied the purges and Stalin's regime in particular and I'm abundantly aware of the horrors of the Gulags. I by no means intend to suggest that they were club med or anything like it.

What I highlight, however, is the very real and intrinsic difference between persecuting people for what they are rather than what they think or say.

The horror of the holocaust is that is stretched well beyond the barbed wire of Auschwitz and into the darkest terrors of every Jew in Europe. The Holocaust was about creating a "them" and destroying it totally. While there was terror in the Stalinist purges and while there was death and suffering and pain they remain qualitatively different from the Holocaust - not at the individual level, but at the societal level.

Fair enough, good points.

Hmm, I agree and disagree. By that I mean I agree with everything you just said but I'm not sure that "creating a "them" and destroying it totally" hasn't been done since then, both in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda.

Look a little further up Scott:

Which is not to say that we haven't see similar horrors in the world. Rwanda is one such example.

But if you're looking for an event that was much worse than the Holocaust, look no further than the Russian purge.

I'll never say anything about which event was worse. These events are just horrible, but
this is a very accurate statement that Mike has posted. Also, Hitler had concentration camps inside of Russia and began murdering just as many Russians before our history books date the Holocaust... You should all try living in Stalingrad (Volgograd) and you'd get the picture.

You guys make valid points re: it not being a body count.

Yeah, if we're going by body count, then the meat industry outstrips the Nazis every year. As for the killing being systematic, the meat industry takes the cake. Want to talk about "them" and "us"? Once again, look no further than meat-eating. "Can't kill humans, but other animals can be tortured (as in searing off the beaks of baby chicks to keep them from pecking each other to death when they're crammed into cages) and killed without a second thought."

The German Holocaust is peanuts by comparison.

just a thougt, .......if we deminish the suffering of any group or person, if we hold up one or another as the true sufferes, then is it made possible by this measuring, to make room for the intentionally cruel to inflict a harm that does not reach the 'measured' standard, and thus be free of the label that inflictor so deserves?

just a question.

I agree with you but also think you are off base.

Scott, I think Josh's comment flew right over your head.

He was playing off of Spooky's comment.

Statement but statement of opposite thought.
I agree with you but also think you are off base.

Clever Josh. Very clever. Too bad Spooky probably dismissed it. :O)

I chortled gently.

.

I think/feel; I'm not your spouse nor am I your therapist, or Daddy. Tell me what you know.

I dismiss "I feel," but sometimes, smart broadcasters are, themselves, competent news analysts, and it's worthwhile to hear what they think about something. They might provide a perspective with merit that you hadn't considered before.

I am a good listener as long as you agree with my ideas!

I have never been wrong. I thought once I was, but found out later that I was mistaken.

I hope I made someone smile!

cranky old man,

I hope I made someone smile!

You did. :o)

I don't mind "I feel" if we are actually talking about feelings. But as any therapist will tell you, feelings are never "wrong" so I don't agree with the "I feel" when I applied to opinions and am usually "spring loaded in the discount position" when I hear that. It's a rebuttable assumption that what follows will be pap.

there is a group out there that say, "feelings are meant to be felt, not acted upon".

...but what do you do when confronted with a conundrum or paradox? In my life, I try to just shut up but then I find I am stuck with a roiling broil in my belly, wishing I was smarter, wiser, better spoken.

Like you I prefer to think with my mind and talk with my mouth.

Scoop: That is a pretty good list. The one I can't stand (because you KNOW what's coming next) is

'hey...I'm not prejudiced, but...'

Of course, you know some type of racist or prejudicial comment is coming. Every time.

I think that was the number one example on Scoops list.

It's about traditions, I guess, that are slipping away in favor of urbanization. It's about a loss of culture that no amount of money or handouts can ever regain.

I've also seen the other side of the coin, though, where a minority culture like the Native Americans absolve themselves of all blame for their woes.

P.S. - Ying and Yang and all that. It's "yin" and "yang." :-)

I did not mean to stick words in your mouth, Scott. It was an IF THEN statement, and not necessarily applied to you.

The end of the Vietnam war came 18 months later than it should have because the parties involved could not agree on the shape of the table. All I'm saying is that if one automatically applies some manner of "rule" as a filter, the message, which is the important thing, gets lost.

No worries, Scott. I'll never miss a chance to rake some muck! :-)

Here's a start on the shape of the table discussion ... there's a lot more to be found on the web.

Some found it a stupid problem ... others felt it was important. In any case, it was one more delay in negotiations. A delay when US servicemen continued lose their lives in 'Nam......

Excuse me for intruding. Just a question for you Scott. Why did you spell Hillary Cllinton's name with a small *h*? I hope it was a typo because I would hate to think you are breaking rule #2.

Good for her, she obviously is a great hostess.

Most people don't realize what it takes to manage a busy dining room.

Your story is very enlightening.

Andretti pitched a fit and demanded to speak with the manager. He told her, in so many words, that he would see that she was fired. Her manager came up, listened to both sides separately, took a look at the seating chart, and told Mario, "I'm sorry, Mr. Andretti, but it looks like there's going to be about a 45 minute wait before we can seat you. Would you like to wait in the bar?"

At which point Mario left.

Later, the manager said he had been tempted to tell Mr. Andretti that he could make himself useful by helping the valets park cars, but he couldn't quite bring himself to stoop to Andretti's level.

Of course, the incident formed the basis for quite a few in jokes for a while, until Dick Clark showed up and made an even bigger ass of himself.

Heather said one pleasant surprise from her time working there was meeting Cindy Crawford. The staff knew ahead of time that she was showing up, and everyone at the restaurant sort of expected that she would be a high-maintenance, supermodel pain-in-the-ass. Turns out she's an extremely nice person who went out of her way to be friendly, asked to be introduced to the kitchen staff so that she could thank them, and was generally a down to earth person.

Go figure.

"I'm Mario Andretti!"

I would've said "Wow! The plumber?!"

until Dick Clark showed up and made an even bigger ass of himself.

Comment #9: "... Don't be a dick."

Cindy Crawford. The staff knew ahead of time that she was showing up, and everyone at the restaurant sort of expected that she would be a high-maintenance, supermodel pain-in-the-ass. Turns out she's an extremely nice person who went out of her way to be friendly, asked to be introduced to the kitchen staff so that she could thank them, and was generally a down to earth person.

Little-known fact: Before the big positive marketing revolution, the "beauty mark" was once known as the "friendly mole."

Well, to tell it succinctly, Dick and his wife showed up for lunch. Remember, this is at a 5-star restaurant in a 5-star resort. They were put in the section of the most experienced waiter, who made an effort to be unobtrusive, yet helpful, and basically ran his ass off for them. Dick refused to even make eye contact; refused to speak to any of the staff, including his waiter; and relayed all his requests, including his food order, through his wife. He was generally surly, totally dismissive, and when he left they left something on the order of a 5% tip for the waiter-- little enough that because of taxes, the waiter essentially paid to wait on them. He was, in general, an obnoxious ass.

The joke around the restaurant after that was "Dick Clark... before he dicks you."

As stories go, it's not nearly as funny as the Andretti story, but Dick Clark was by far the larger @!$%#.

Thanks Scott. Solid insight is hard to find, and it does bother me to think that some find me offensive.

You are so right in that it changes a person's line of thinking, and not always consciously. Sometimes my actions or reactions are offensive to random individuals of the race in question. It's by no means deliberate, but flashbacks trigger easily for me, and can send me into a tailspin of nightmares, and then there are several sleepless nights before I come to terms with it again.

I think such a history would definitely skew your perceptions towards a race. After all, assessing threats from a glance is a built-in survival tactic.

That being said, and this is rather unwieldy, but perhaps explain a bit about your particular history when making a remark you think might be skewed from those experiences? Or, perhaps leave off the qualifier until someone calls you out on skew.

This is indeed a tough one. I can just picture the "oh, but those three people don't represent an entire race, you damn racist!" vituperation that would surely be headed your way.

Perhaps something like "I cannot speak for all [insert racial qualifer here] people, but in my experience this has happened..." would be better than "I am not racist but..." It shows that you are in no way assuming that all, or even most, people of a given race act a certain way or perpetrate certain evils, but that for whatever reason, in your experience certain things have happened that way.

There is none.

If you find yourself saying or thinking "I'm not a Racist, But,...."

You have Racist issues.

You have Racist issues.

Of course I have issues with racism. That's why I brought it up.

That being said, and this is rather unwieldy, but perhaps explain a bit about your particular history when making a remark you think might be skewed from those experiences?

It's very awkward. One never knows who they are explaining themselves to, and questions come fast and hard somedays. There are always helpful solutions on how to 'fix' me, some not rightly helpful.

Perhaps something like "I cannot speak for all [insert racial qualifer here] people, but in my experience this has happened..." would be better than "I am not racist but..."

At first glance, this seems unwieldy as well, but I do think I can, with a little bit of thought, combine the two ideas and put together a complete, logical sentence that can be thought of as 'socially acceptable'.

Thank ya'll for helping me with it. I've fumbled it badly over the years in spite of putting much thought into it.

One problem I often see, especially online, is people mixing up facts and experiences.

I'm terribly guilty of this somedays. Sometimes I stick my two cents in, only to remember a day or two later, "Hey! It's really not all about me...!"

Growing up south of the Mason-Dixon line, racism has touched my life in hundreds of ways. (Oh, the stories I will write.....someday.) There will never be a day when my thoughts on racism are not, in some way, touched by the firsthand knowledge I have of it.

All 3 robberies were intense situations, 2 violently so. I am a walking writing miracle. The mental strain that such attacks create is unimaginable. Truly a devastating blow to my sanity.

How does this work?

"I'm not racist at all. However, I have survived tragic events that left me unable to effectively communicate with people of ~insert racial qualifier here~, and that is beyond my control."

What'd you think of my suggested example quote for you to use?

It's okay, but..... :-)

I noticed in #13.7 that you referred to River as a male. I'm 100% female. When the subject opens up I turn into a flaming ball of nerves, and if that happens on a bad day, it can take me weeks to work up the nerve to leave the house again. It just sucks to be me, I suppose.

Now that I think about it, there's no way for me to avoid the conflict of interest when speaking of racism. :-(

I'm not sure if it's possible for you to talk about racism without having your opinions and experiences affect things - i'd just ask if you can separate the facts from the opinions?

I hope I do. I've got sense enough to recognize the difference between a factual statement and an opinionated statement. There are times, however, that my English fails me and when the facts come out, then the opinions and feelings follow. Then I'm tiptoeing like crazy to find the right words.

You know, I see a lot of racially-charged posts here on Newsvine. So many are hate-filled, angry, and hurtful. I don't want to be that way. There's nothing to be gained from singling out a whole race for the actions of a few dummies.

Thanks again, Scott. This has been helpful, and has given me much to think on.

River,

I have a very hard time with a particular group of people and I have nothing like your reasons to feel this way. One day I have nothing but contempt and anger for them and then I see them being mistreated and I yell out in their defense. Go figure!

At some point in the future, it will happen for you. As a total stranger to you, I hope it happens sooner than later.

Now, if we could just figure out why I'm so weird.

Susan

I'm not at all ashamed to say that probably 70% of the times when I say "With all due respect," I'm gonna call you a dolt shortly thereafter.

In my defense, I honestly think that I am giving all due respect in doing so.

I use it as a warning sign.

I was taught that in the military when an officer would ask were I went, what I did, and why I did it.

"With all due respect sir, you don't have the need to know."

It really pissed them off, but they had no real reason to push the issue after that.

I like the phrase "but I mean that in the best possible way." or "I'm just sayin"

See Godwin's law wiki entry here

Well, I can't think of a time that I have used the "I am not a racist, but" line.

I can think of many times that I have had to use the other line.

People are just too damn sensitive these days. And if they are that sensitive, then they probably have a reason to be that way.

I think all of us could have a guilty conscience at least once in our lives.

Oh, let's be honest. No one is stopping you from saying a damn thing. did the Newsvine robot bust through your door and tie you up as you typed your mini-screed? No? Case in point. On the other hand, people taking umbrage at what you say, that's not any form of censorship-- that's free speech, as well. You can say whatever you want to say, but there's nothing wrong with pointing out that sometimes the things you say will make people think you're an @!$%#. Noting that is free speech. Suggesting you should shut up instead of carrying on about your personal bigotries is free speech. When I say that you speak for a lot of Americans who seem to have their heads up their butts, that's free speech. And when I note that you can't possibly be made sick by gay marriage, it's homosexuality itself that causes you to pitch a fit, that's free speech And when I say that you wouldn't know a moral compass if someone bounced one off your head, that's free speech, too.

Right? We can talk all about these subjects, but the truth is that one of our two positions is based on the knee-jerk assumption that only certain classes of people should have rights. And that person should think a moment or two before going on about "the exact date that this country stopped being free."

The liberal left can't drive us straight to hell. The radical right already has us in the parking lot.

Free speech means you have the right to say things that make an ass out of you, and also means that everyone else has the right to think you an ass for doing it.

Sometimes "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." -- Mark Twain

"The right to swing my fist, ends at the tip of another man's nose." -- Oliver Wendell Homes

Substitute speech for fist and ear for nose and that about sums it up. Free speech is only free, if a person is willing to fight for it during that conversation.

The 1st amendment, is about any form of government not inhibiting free speech. Businesses frequently terminate the employment of individuals that use unacceptable language in their working environments. A person doesn't have to respect another's free speech rights. The only thing that would restrain a person would be the possibility of incarceration or potential for an a$$ whipping.

Saying something that is offensive, will only end up in a local court system. If someone thinks otherwise, walk into a biker bar and shout out "bunch of wimps". The merits of the 1st amendment -most likely - will not be the main topic of any ensuing activity. If anyone wishes to claim - from their hospital bed - that their constituional rights were violated...... good luck.

Does that mean that the independents will just keep us in purgatory?

I am not a racist and I believe there are people who have had bad experiences with (race reference here) leading them to believe that they are all (derogatory reference here.)

i'm not sure why a belief system that stems from knowing in the pit of your soul that a Man that lays with another Man, or a Woman that lays with another Woman is an abomination or that killing a child for birth control is murder. Technically, that's not a sentence, but assuming that you meant you're not sure why such a belief system can be called "bigotry", I'll happily give you my opinion.

It's no one's business which two consenting adults agree to have sex with each other. Your nose has no business in anyone's bedroom. It's no business of yours whether a woman decides to continue a pregnancy or not. Your nose has no business in her womb.

There are, of course, nuances to both questions (for example, on abortion), but that's the long and short of it. Your system forms a "moral" judgment of people based on the failure to extend rights to certain people that you yourself take for granted.

how is it personal bigotry when someone disagrees with possibility of putting someone in office that has ties to Islam. Are religious beliefs a legitimate reason to disagree with putting someone in office? Should we discriminate against people based on what name they call God, or on whether they believe in God, at all? Again, the notion is that rights which we take for granted for ourselves should not be extended to others. This is bigotry.

Bigotry is tied to hatred and i don't hate this people, i feel sorry for them. That bigotry often is tied to hatred does not mean that hatred is a necessary component of bigotry. The simple desire to discriminate, whether based in hatred or any other irrational reason, is enough.

I'm watching this Country that was once founded on God move farther and farther away from Morality. I seriously doubt it. The comment suggests a lack of familiarity on your part with the history of this country.

The point i was trying to make from my first posting was that sometimes people need to have their feelings hurt to see the truth Sometimes it is necessary for us to be @!$%#s in order to get our point across. But sometimes the point we get across boils down to the simple fact that we are @!$%#s. Distinguishing between the two situations can sometimes be difficult.

Ok, I have been trying to read these posts, came to this one and just got totally lost. Anyone else with me on this?

While we are on the subject of what this country was founded on...

This was a nation before the USA was founded, before the God fearing people came and killed and cheated it's inhabitants out of the land, forced them into areas they did not want.
I could go on, but I won't. It is all history.

The fact remains that everyone has a right to do what they want, when they want, right up to the point that it takes rights away from someone else.

I thought this was a great little thing to lighten up the mood that is sometimes very blue here in the news. I was honestly having fun and found many of these posts enjoyable and funny. Then we come to this.

Well, to use one of the things on the list.

With all due respect, deanwilson, you sir are entitled to your opinion, but this really was not the place for any right or left wing garbage. I feel you have offended the author and most of the people responding to this post. I think that you have become one on the list of "don't be a dick" dicks.