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

and no, I'm not thinking with emotion.

Well, if this is from Dictionary.com, then I am very surprised.

<https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/massacre>

wasn't expecting that embed to have that image.. i'll fix it

massacre (v): "deliberately and violently kill (a large number of people)."

That definition is so broad as to encompass virtually any war.

Just looking at what happened at wounded knee would technically classify this as a massacre, just as massacres happened in vietnam, and all the way back to the times of rome.

So using the term war or battle instead of massacre is a distinction of emotional nuance.

which is why I found you a more concise and appropriate term.

What you appear to criticize him on is the use of a term with the wrong emotional nuance. You appear to have no factual leg to stand on whatsoever.

It's purposeful slaughtering of civilians

yet for some reason, no matter how many times I point said difference out, you refuse to even acknowledge it.

I made my point and I see no new argument.

Sorry, I am done.

that's the difference.

I think I won.

You can think that, but in reality you're very wrong. You've basically ignored me pointing out the actual definition of my terms, and continued to point the finger of 'emotional nuance'

Anyway. This is the closest one can get to winning an Internet argument, so let me just declare myself the winner.

it doesn't mean civiliians specifically, its excessive killing in a short time frame.

Haunted, usually it's on civilians though, or disarmed soldiers. people who can't fight back.