Quote:
Originally Posted by quido
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Alright, we can revert to civil. I think your "arguments" are severely lacking and harebrained.
You are doing the very thing of which you are accusing me - insisting that one meaning is more valid than another and should be implied. I did no such thing and merely pointed out the meaning of the word as it pertained to our guild's name. The word holocaust has been used in writing in this context both before and after the holocaust. There was no anti-Semitic or pro-genocide nonsense in the guild except for from a single person who was culled.
I'm not sure what you're going on about. Why do some people always assume the worst possible context despite plenty of evidence to the contrary? It couldn't be because of some internal malfunction, right?
|
So to be fair: I wasn't there when any of this happened so if you did cull people who made jokes I would probably be more likely to believe you if I were there.
And I never accused you or the guild of being pro-genocide. I'm personally of the opinion that you're mildly insensitive or perhaps merely enjoy being seen as edgey.
That being said: I'm not arguing that my definition is better. I'm arguing that my definition is more common. I googled "Holocaust" (no "the") and looked through 10 pages of results. Only 3 hits in those 10 pages of results were not about the genocide. Those 3 hits were meriam webster, dictionary.com, and wiktionary.
So... why does your definition of "holocaust" matter more than the normal use, but for other words or phrases that's not the case? You haven't given any reason why "holocaust" should be treated differently than other words where the culturally used meaning is first assumed rather than the academic meaning.