What's wrong with it is it's factually inaccurate, fucking duh. You can stop at "it's not genocide" because that by itself is an entirely accurate statement, everything you said after that is bullshit, and the comment you're referring to was not ambiguous about that at all so you have absolutely no excuse for pretending otherwise.

[–] balance8873@lemmy.myserv.one -2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

No, he said everything else is some type of castle. I looked this castle up and it aligns well with the idea that he's trying to shut down the other claims without considering them.

From the wiki:

where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities: one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey")

So he's technically saying that the rest of the post is modest claims which are easy to defend, ie he agrees with Y. (I'm assuming the bailey is genocide and the motte is the claims of ethnic cleansing w/out genocide)

[–] Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml -2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Lol try harder patriot

[–] balance8873@lemmy.myserv.one -2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Another solid argument that gets right to the real point of all this.

[–] Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 hours ago

Arguments are for disagreements in good faith with people who are honest, you're a lying sack of shit so you do not warrant an argument, cry about it