04-13-2025, 09:22 PM
I understand that this is an emotional subject for many, and I don’t fault you for reacting personally. But if we’re going to engage in historical discourse, we must separate emotion from analysis.
You accuse me of having a “cold heart” for questioning numbers—but that’s precisely the problem with this conversation. History isn’t protected by emotion—it’s tested by evidence. If you believe that “only” one million dead means I somehow lack empathy, then you’re misinterpreting my purpose entirely.
I am not minimizing suffering. I am challenging the accuracy and consistency of a narrative that has become immune to scrutiny.
As for honesty: “Let’s be honest” is not an accusation. It’s a rhetorical invitation for both of us to look beyond political pressures and inherited beliefs and to assess the facts objectively.
You say you have better things to do than debate me—that’s your choice. But refusing to engage doesn’t invalidate the questions I’ve raised. In fact, it highlights the very climate of intellectual fear surrounding this topic.
You accuse me of having a “cold heart” for questioning numbers—but that’s precisely the problem with this conversation. History isn’t protected by emotion—it’s tested by evidence. If you believe that “only” one million dead means I somehow lack empathy, then you’re misinterpreting my purpose entirely.
I am not minimizing suffering. I am challenging the accuracy and consistency of a narrative that has become immune to scrutiny.
As for honesty: “Let’s be honest” is not an accusation. It’s a rhetorical invitation for both of us to look beyond political pressures and inherited beliefs and to assess the facts objectively.
You say you have better things to do than debate me—that’s your choice. But refusing to engage doesn’t invalidate the questions I’ve raised. In fact, it highlights the very climate of intellectual fear surrounding this topic.