-
If you meant to say "The wording was unwise because a lot of people conflate those things and some of them will respond in a purely reactionary way rather than think about it.", that's worth debate although I'm not sure I agree. But you said "diluting the language of the holocaust" which puts you on the side of the petty, Anglo-centric nationalists who are the ones doing the diluting.
itsbruce-
Ok, but it wasn’t ‘unwise’ if it was calculated, had the desired reaction etc. She’s not stupid. It’s debatable whether it was worth it. She obviously thought it was. That’s unfortunate imho mainly because hyperbole in politics isn’t just unpleasant. As a tactic hyperbole tends to favour the least ethical actors leading the least educated audience and those aren’t on the left!
which puts you on the side of the petty, Anglo-centric nationalists who are the ones doing the diluting.
Lol. The reductive partisan argument. “You’re either with us or against us” yeah?
miro_o
It makes perfect sense. People (rightly or wrongly) equate ‘concentration camp’ with the holocaust death camps - therefore damage done. That’s what matters, not the dictionary definition.