Reply #192: No examples exist

[manic expression]

I'm still looking forward to your examples.

Anyway, what a specific group of people has to do with it is that they are now targets, they are put in danger by such ideas. A "whole bunch of people"? That sounds like straight-up murder, and I don't need to point out that you can get in some considerable trouble for planning to kill a "whole bunch of people".

A classless society doesn't mean people are slaughtered and eliminated, it means equity. What does that have to do with genocidal or intolerant beliefs? Nothing. Next question.

Yes, the Jews were blamed for Germany's problems, and the idea was that they were "inferior" to the "pure" "Aryans". That, in itself, is intolerant, and if people actually stomped out those ideas before they took power, they could've been stopped. Instead, they were allowed to organize, operate, grow and eventually take hold.

OK, let us examine it: Stalin's murders, the result of a madman taking control and killing everyone he wanted to; no ideology was the cause of this (in fact, Communists were the main victims). The cultural revolution, basically the result of a mad man trying to regain full control over a country, the cause is often put as "too much government and too little popular participation"; no real ideology here except totalitarianism, nothing new.

In Pol Pot's killing spree, the Khmer Rouge thought that anyone who was even remotely linked to the last government; anyone who was a professional or intellectual; anyone who was ethnically Vietnamese, Cambodian Christian, Jewish, Islamic and part of the Buddhist monkhood; and anyone who wasn't deemed a really good farmer were targeted to be murdered; that, my friend, is quite intolerant, and if anyone wants to say that Vietnamese people should be slaughtered, it really doesn't matter what flag they say it under.

That's just my view.