A longtime former employee at one of President Donald Trump's golf clubs was mistakenly deported to Mexico, The New York Times reported — sending U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement into a mad scramble to correct the error and bring him home."Alejandro Juarez stepped off a plane in Texas and st...

Of course.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    77·
    19 hours ago

    What’s one complete article compared to a partial sentence stripped of all context?

    The precise number of people who knew of the Final Solution is unknown. The larger population were at least acutely aware of the Nazi Party’s antisemitism, if not advocates of the movement themselves. Numerous perspectives emerge when examining the degrees to which the larger population were aware that antisemitic practices enabled by the Nazi Party would eventuate to ethnic cleansing of the Jewish population. However, many historians argue that Germans were provided information explicit enough to indicate that the Jewish people were being massacred.

    Although the mass murder of Jews took place outside of Germany, the mass killing of Soviet prisoners of war occurred within it and at an early date. By mid 1942 an estimated 227,000 had died after being deported to Germany. Many Germans were aware of these killings. Some Germans tried to help the prisoners, by giving them food or even aiding escapees. According to the Security Service reports, many Germans called for the death of these prisoners out of fear that feeding them would reduce their own rations.[9]

    Like if there’s one word that being removed from a sentence is a giant red flag…

    “However” has to be up there.

    Like, it’s hard to see that deliberate and unnecessary ommision as anything other than an intentional and explicit choice to bias people who didn’t click the link…

    • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
      1·
      4 hours ago

      Read what you posted. The context is saying that they don’t know for sure what % of the population knew, and they lay out some arguments supporting both sides. You used the link as if it proved the population didn’t know. But that clearly isn’t what it says.

      My point wasn’t that the link proved the opposite of your opinion, it was that the link doesn’t prove your opinion. That is a different bar.

      The word “however” basically means “in contrast to the previous sentence”. It exclusion doesn’t change the meaning of the quote. It simply shortens it by allowing the exclusion of the previous sentence. I am not disputing that some experts believe the population didn’t know. I am disputing that the link proves that the consensus of experts believe the population didn’t know. That is how you presented the link, with obvious intent to mislead anyone who didn’t read it into thinking it supported as fact that the population didn’t know.