Crowder is the only one who does a better Trump impression.

Steve Crowder?

I actually don't trust him after the video he did with prageru on columbus day..

Eh, everyone has hits and misses.

By that standard you can't watch anyone anymore.

Loosen up a bit.

he called wounded knee a battle and not a massacre, stretching the truth and trying to make it seem like what happened to the native americans was just losing a war. And no, by that standard, I have people who I can be sure will say it how it is, and not stretch historical truth to fit their narratives.

Is your distinction between a battle and a massacre fact based or emotional?

a battle becomes a massacre when you slaughter the innocent, unarmed, and defenseless.

it's indiscriminate, it's brutal, and it's cold.

Name me one war in which there were no civilian deaths.

There is a fine line between directly firing upon civilians purposefully and say a stray bomb in the second world war being dropped on a house.

So your distinction is a fine line.

But you are upset that Crowder didn't side on the same side of the line.

purposeful murdering of civilians is a massacre, by definition.

The distinction you appear to put forward is one of degree and subjectivity.

indiscriminate slaughtering, which is what wounded knee was, is, by definition, a massacre.

You can make a comparison to other historical incidents and by that standard you have a point, that there were a comparatively high number of civilian deaths, but to say that this was an outright mischaracterization, based on the use of the term alone is quite a strange basis to judge the credibility of a person tackling a historical event.

We use the term to coin other events which historically had less deaths than the wounded knee massacre, so yes, I would, based upon that, coin this as a massacre rather than a battle.

Well, I think that's an incredibly flimsy premise.

It's more of the fact that he bent the truth and made it seem like the only deaths were US soldiers and Native American warriors, and omitted truth to push the narrative he had in mind that really grinds my gears.

I'm not going to get into arguing a Sorites Paradox.

Neither side is sinless, no, but it's completely ignorant to act like we didn't completely decimate the native american people of north america.

Yes, if he made factual misrepresentations, it is worth criticizing him for it. Why focus on the term then?

It seems like you are criticizing him for landing on the wrong side of two terms that we seem to agree have intermediary gradations.

It's like someone calling a purple tone blue, while you call it red.

I don't think that's a very productive conversation.

it's pretty simple to coin something a massacre if you look at how it plays out. It's not a very broad term, it just has one simple definition.

You are criticizing him for using the wrong term for an emotionally loaded concept. If this is emotional nuance, that seems pedantic.

The simple condition was that innocent people die?

That is it?

Every war is a massacre then.

A massacre is defined as 'the act or instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under the circumstances of atrocity or cruelty'

under the circumstances of?

You made this up yourself.

And yes, many wars DO have massacres in them, in which innocent people are lined up and shot, burned alive, etc.

This is so poorly worded, I'm sorry.

The grammar in the definition is almost cringe inducing. Where is this from?

It's needlessly circumlocute and verbose.

you should check your dms, I'm not allowed to send screenshots in this server. Dictionary.com

Most definitions vary in their wording, but the concept is the same throughout