Parent comment was making a joke about the political situation between Armenia and Turkey.
I promise to use it in English as soon as Germany becomes Deutschland and Japan becomes Nippon.
You're free to call Japan Nippon as long as you're fine with people raising eyebrows, sometimes not understanding what you mean, or deciding you're a pretentious twit.
The request that we use a character that doesn't even exist in the English alphabet (ü) is particularly ludicrous.
It would make even more sense, after all we lose letters because we write those sounds using other letters or letter combinations, however the "ü" in "Türkiye" doesn't have an analogue in the existing alphabet.
No, saying that the Armenian genocide wasn't just "ethnic cleansing" isn't "a great example of whataboutism."
First responders and medical professionals famously often have a sense of humor too dark to use around outsiders without causing offence/outrage(like what happened here), but I'm quite sure they are not "making light" of the loss of life and terrible injuries they face and fight.
If you're arguing in good faith, you need to take about three steps back and realize what caliber of strawman you're fighting against here.
Like three times in this conversation I've explicitly differentiated between 'making jokes about' and 'downplaying' something, and every time you have failed to engage with my reasoning and instead chosen to simply double down on your two-dimensional accusation.
No, but not engaging with my argument supporting my position(about the emergency workers, though if your point is about this specific joke and not jokes about taboo topics in general I'll admit that that is moot), and setting up strawmen("about how the Holocaust wasn’t so bad?") means you're not arguing in good faith.
This isn't a discussion, you're just yelling your opinion at me over and over.
That jogged me a little: The magnitude of the issue would be different in the mind of any person: The original poster of the joke and I see more of a historical fact and engage with it fairly casually, while someone very directly affected might still (I maintain, though you don't have to agree) make jokes about it, but a very different kind of joke, one that does include the seriousness of the issue to them.
I'm having a little trouble articulating it, but I think my point is: You were "right" to call out the original joke as coming from a place of not-as-serious-about-the-genocide as, well, you seem to be. But this is a function of us, the people who indeed are not as serious about it as those more closely affected, not of it being a joke.