In discussing cultural sensitivities to certain issues, a reader could not seem to understand a point being made. I looked for another instance of a similar issue, the following logic chain occurred to me, and I wanted to ask if it made sense:
1) Like all human beings, Jews are concerned with their survival.
2) Within living memory, that survival has been severely threatened.
3) Their greatest protection against reoccurrence is a clear memory of what happened–both their own cultural memory (“Never Again” requires a memory of what happened) and that of other nations and peoples, that we not ignore the early signs of monstrosity.
4) A great danger therefore is a fading of that memory, or a deliberate distortion of the events and costs of the Holocaust.
5) A great problem is therefore those who who deliberately or accidentally, consciously or unconsciously diminish the horror of that experience. Claim it did not happen, or was “not as bad as they say”, or degrade and defuse the term by applying it to lesser events: (“the election was a holocaust”). It is notable that Jews rarely use the term “holocaust” to apply to anything other than a particular historical event, perhaps for this reason.
6) Those concerned with #1 therefore have less tolerance and more sensitivity to what they see as deniers and corruptors of language to this specific end. By having no tolerance for what they see as precursive behaviors, they are attempting to “kill the monster while it is small.”
Does this make sense?