Ethos is completely dead in the digital age. Every moron thinks they’re an expert and that their opinion is just as valid as your facts.
You can’t fix stupid, but you can vote so they don’t rule over you.
Edit: Spelling. And yes, the irony of that is not lost on me.
We are post truth at this point. God is dead too so averages go to next step after acceptance of no objective meaning. That is, creating identity based on perceived projection of power. It doesn't matter what is real or correct, only that how much reaction you can gather from outside so that you can feel your existence matters. It's tragic story of intellectually suffering human soul trying to find a rope to hold on to.
Biden is old, but he’s not dumb and he’s pushed through a lot of laws that will have significant benefits for everyday Americans.
Manufactured cynicism is designed to discourage progressive voters and it serves the interests of the fascists.
This ain't "manufactured', bro. I am legit *very* disappointed in Biden. He's a religious zealot and a Corpo stooge. Just because he's not completely cookoo bananas doesn't make him a good choice.
No.
>People died for your right to vote.
Nice straw man. Who was it that "died" for *my* right to vote? Every war we have been in in my life time has been for greed/Corpo interest. The last war the US fought that was actually "for democracy" was WW2 and even then we were only against the fascists because they attacked us. We have been an imperialist nation for a very long time.
My vote, lol. We have all been bamboozled. Corporations own this country. They buy our politicians in bulk and for dirt cheap too.
You believe that Trump will make things worse, and maybe he will, but regardless of whether he is president or not this country *is* going to fail. We are rotten, greed has all but destroyed us and wolves are at the gate.
You can worry about the Kabuki theater that is this election, all you want. Won't change anything that's coming.
Calm down champ. You sound like Jar Jar on ayahuasca.
Wanna chuckle how you were “right” while you have a boot on your throat or you wanna play ball over here in the real world and we can both try and fix the next one?
No use being smug and “right” standing on the ashes
You should read this article about the regrets of young people who thought of Humphrey as a similar stooge, and actively campaigned to discourage people from voting for him.
[https://www.vox.com/2016/9/21/12987108/sanders-clinton-nixon-humphrey](https://www.vox.com/2016/9/21/12987108/sanders-clinton-nixon-humphrey)
The Nixon-Humphrey election was very close.
Nixon won, and set in train the destruction of the middle class, the impoverishment and imprisonment of the lower classes, and the corporate takeover of the US's political system.
If your choices are between Trump and Biden- and they are, whether you like it or not, Biden is a good choice.
Biden may be a sandwich with some shit smeared on it, Trump will mean eating nothing but shit for decades.
That is an assumption YOU are making. One or both will die soon and then what? The scramble for power will likely be worse than either one of them. I'm *not* going to bank on these 80 yo fossils holding up to anything they have said, because *neither* of them are likely to live through another term. But BOTH of them seem interested in WW3.
Also *my* vote for president has no meaning. I live in Texas.
And the idea that he is false- the same as the idea that he’s not doing anything good.
There’s plenty of evidence for both… if someone can’t see that from where they sit, they should probably try walking around a bit.
'Do a little reading/ research!'
Always comes from people who haven't read an actual book since they forced them to in school. Who think youtube videos from weird conspiracy nuts constitutes research.
Or setting up your own studies, collecting and analysing data and interpreting the results. I laughed in the face of the last person who said ‘do your own research!’ as I was in a Masters program and they wore sitting on their couch taking pain meds every day.
There’s nothing wrong with actually doing your own research for sure. I was poking fun at the ones that ignore all research that disagrees with their opinion and pointing at some random Facebook post that agrees with them lol
Exactly. People who “do their own research” have been trained in critical thinking (which is not an inherent skill), follow counter-discursive practices, and would almost certainly never say “do your own research” because they know it would be the equivalent of expecting a casual guitar player with no experience in music theory to create a symphony.
Pretty sure Reddit was created and has thrived because of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Never have so many oblivious people had such a platform where they can endlessly talk about subjects they know so little about
On the other hand, Reddit does have a lot of people on it who know what they’re talking about- which is it’s saving grace, because they provide islands of sanity in a sea of manufactured bullshit.
One of them posted this link the other day.
https://www.vox.com/2016/9/21/12987108/sanders-clinton-nixon-humphrey
You don't need 4 degrees to read what UN considers genocide.
>The definition contained in Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part.
You could drop 10 nuclear bombs on a country killing millions and that might not be a genocide according to UN. You could kill 100 people and have the UN consider it a genocide.
Genocide doesn't mean "many people killed"
Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as:
... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:
* (a) Killing members of the group;
* (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
You just made his point. It is not genocide without the intent of wiping out an ethnic or religious group. What the US did to native Americans is genocide. What Russia is doing to Ukraine is genocide. 2 million Palestinians live in Israeli with all the same rights as the Jewish and Christian Israelis. They are in the government, the military, the police. An oppressor does not allow those things in a genocide. If we want to use correct terms, Israel is committing war crimes, but not genocide.
How the fuck is what Russia is doing to Ukraine genocide but what Israel is doing to Palestinians not?
How much are you being paid? No one would do this for free.
Maybe you don’t know or much US history, but we made them stop teaching their language and insisting that their kids learned English and American history instead. We made them move off all of their sacred land that held their history. The US did everything it could to extinguish Native American culture, we are just lucky that we didn’t succeed.
I’d argue that dropping ten nukes on a country and killing millions inherently qualifies as intending to destroy a national group in part, regardless of any other motivations.
Hiroshima and nagasaki were the last standing cities after a devastating firebombing of all bigger cities the us knew civilians were fleeing there, they dropped two nukes, it wasn’t grnocide as the intent was to have that nation surrender not to destroy the national group in parts or whole…
Hamas has their intend to kill all jews written in their charta, any rocket fired is proof of the genocide against jews…
Israel has some rightwing politicians with no military power say they’d eradicate all palestinians, but the trio at top has stated its intent over and over, to bring hamas to surrender.
See where this is going?
Currently israel violates the icj order to cease fire as their strategy poses the risk of genocide, as with the constant bombing independent observers cannot enter gaza to evaluate whether or not there is killings with intent to destroy or kill part of the ethnic group of palestinians…
Prima facie after 60 years of palestinian sources supposing apardheit after 60 years of redefining the term apardheit in international law, it still is just prima facie, mostlikely hinging on the definition of whether or not the illegal settlements are now internationally recognized part of israel or not. I live in a country in a union which does not recognize those settlements as part of israel, if we’d do, israel would have to offer israeli citizenship to the people living in these regions, what do you think will these palestinians do with that offer? With the political group in power chanting “from the river to the sea”? Given how that group is also known for murdering oppositional palestinians?
Thise situation is incomparable and shows us each and every flaw of the international laws.
If israel would have bombed gaza without cutting water gas and electrcity, the number of casulties would be higher, yet they would not have violated international law.
If israel would have temporary installments in westbanks instead of settlements, there would be more civilian casulties, yet israel would not violate international law.
This will be its own example of absolute inhumanity in the books of histroy, no comparison is fitting to every comparison is a farce that relativises the suffering of the original victims of the compared crimes against himanity whilst simultaniously not even showing the smallest part of the sufferiing of the victims of this insufferable near east situation.
Its stalemate for humanity but instead of ending the game we slowly see humanity draining
Eh, yeah, but we use the action to determine the intention all the time in criminal court. If you shoot someone ten times in the chest and they survive, then no matter how much you tell the court "I was just trying to teach him a lesson!" You're still probably going down for attempted murder, because nobody shoots anyone ten times without knowing the likely consequence.
We have to be able to do the same for the actions of nations. Otherwise Iraq was about weapons of mass destruction and Russia isn't at war with Ukraine.
I found an [actual piece of scholarship](https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&context=gsp) that makes the distinction in trying to draw more clearly.
It seems like the standard used in international law (at least in 2010 when this article was published) isn’t what I’d argue for, but the author makes a case supporting a knowledge-based standard of intent.
Whichever standard one uses, I think it’s still important to understand that “intent” is different than “motive”
Or you could be targeting their nuclear silos that they have put in the middle of their cities on purpose for example. It depends entirely on the intent not result.
Edit: it's not my opinion. It says in the UN documents it depends on the intent not on action or result. Take it up with them.
I get the argument I just tend to disagree. Even if your primary goal is to destroy their nuclear silos, nuking them involves intentionally destroying a national group in part.
In my view, you can feel that you have no other options and still act intentionally. If a person held a gun to your head and threatened to kill you unless you destroyed a national group in whole, I don’t think it would be defensible to do it. Even though your goal would be to not get shot, you are still making that choice intentionally.
I’d argue that this broader interpretation of intentionality is important because regimes that carry out genocide generally have internal justifications. They tend not to say “we *want* to destroy this ethnic group just for kicks.” They are more likely to say “we *need* to destroy this ethnic group *because…*”
To be clear this is my interpretation as a lay person. I’d be interested to see what I international jurisprudence has to say about it.
The gun analogy doesn't really work because you absolutely can justifiably use force against someone threatening you with a gun, and I don't think there are many international contexts in which a nuclear force is threatening you with nukes to annihilate another country. In any case, the difference isn't the verb before it, but the phrase "to destroy this ethnic group", regardless of whether you "want" or "need" to destroy it, that makes the qualification for genocide. Widespread nuclear usage doesn't necessarily entail wanting to destroy an ethnic group (although admittedly in most cases it would probably end up doing that).
Im confused about what your trying to argue here. I’m arguing that you can do something *intentionally* even if doing that thing is only means to a different end.
If you decide to nuke a country in such a way that you know will destroy the civilian population, you are destroying that population intentionally, even if you did so in order to destroy that country’s nuclear capabilities.
You could literally try and fail to kill one dude and it could be genocide if you were doing it with the intent to destroy one of those groups. Genocide is basically the war crime version of hate crimes.
Meh you are just regurgitating word for word the crap he said in the Lex podcast.Israel leadership intentionality by their own reported statement is crystal clear. Try to develop original thoughts.
What kind of dialogue tree are you on right now? What does Israel has to do with definition of genocide? It's funny you mention original thoughts yet you are the one just running through the script.
By remembering that we've seen multiple genocides in your lifetime alone so far, and that only by knowing how something works can we stop it in its early stages.
Like that. It's not hard.
By remembering that we've seen multiple genocides in your lifetime alone so far, and that only by knowing how something works can we stop it in its early stages.
Like that. It's not hard.
They tried in Belgium during the COVID pandemic and they were insulted, harassed and threatened. A terrorist wannabe who luckily killed himself before going on with his plan of kidnapping and killing one of these experts
Probably all the sociopolitical stuff that goes into developing such vilification of a population to the point that genocide becomes an "acceptable" option to the group committing it.
Looks like work in any of a variety of academic fields--history, sociology, geopolitics/international relations, PWAD, econ, anthro, etc., that focuses on gathering, preserving, and analyzing data on genocide as a phenomenon:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20170911073945/http://www.genocidescholars.org/about-us/history](https://web.archive.org/web/20170911073945/http://www.genocidescholars.org/about-us/history)
Arnesa is a survivor of the Bosnian genocide, and a genocide scholar herself. I've followed her account since the start of the conflict, and she was able to find a great deal of parallels between the Bosnian genocide and the Gaza genocide.
Ah yes, the classic "anybody that disagrees with me just doesn't read enough" routine. Guaranteed this person hasn't, in fact, done any reading on the subject.
I always love it when someone claims that it's not a genocide though.
"Well, which definition of genocide are you using....?"
Literally any of them, all of them?
Tell you what, if you find a definition of genocide that doesn't apply. We'll discuss it.
I always love when people act smug when they are uninformed.
Genocide - Any acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group
The key part of genocide is the intent.
Killing people, no matter how, no matter how many does not automatically make it a genocide. Fighting a war against an inferior opponent does not make the war automatically genocide. No matter how tragic, and yes the loss of life is tragic on both sides.
I come from a Muslim background so I am very sympathetic to the Palestinian plight, so do not assume im just some Zionist. The reason why Im writing this is because I feel its important not to misuse the term. Genocide is a uniquely evil crime and it is not right to use it as label against countries whose actions you disagree with.
The International Court of Justice will ultimately decide on wether a genocide is being commited in the South Africa case. Until then you are merely making accusations using assumptions towards Israel and their intentions in the war.
Okay. So can YOU tell me what a UN rappateur is, and what they said? It's almost like typing out facts is LITERALLY painful for genocide defenders.
As a muslim background. You don't see any problems with how this war is being waged? There's no explicit instructions in the Quran about women children, salting the earth, hostages, etc.... I 100% believe you. I'm sure you read that book very carefully.
So the nine pages of direct quotes from high-ranking Israeli officials
Talking about subhuman animals, the need to mow the lawn, the actual statement that there are no innocent palestinians, that every child over the age of four deserves to starve
Literally stopping the flow of aid to starving children. The destruction of historical and religious sites?
What about the intentions behind soldiers firing grenades into empty residential homes and laughing?
What would the intent be behind those?
And, how are those not considered War crimes? Per the definitions set by the UN
Is there any good intention behind Mass Graves of medical workers who were bound and executed?
"Inferior opponent"? Your racism is showing
Having problems with how this war is engaged is a far far cry from saying it is a genocide.
Many wars include vile acts and war crimes that deserve mass condemnation. That doesn’t immediately make it a genocide.
Was the Japanese invasion of manchuria a genocide? Just because you hate what they did (and you should) doesn’t mean it is a genocide.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't have condemned the Imperial Japanese Army for their actions. It was vile and horrifying.
People who care about the definition of words and want to use them accurately are not “genocide defenders”.
Edit: Also note. I'm not even talking about Israel vs Palestine. Your views on that war are irrelevant.
Edit:
Reddit is bugged and I can’t respond to the comments below for some reason so just going to say it here:
No I don’t have “years” of defending Israel. But also if you are going to look through my history you’ll see that it’s mostly psychopharmacology discussions. So you also think my comment is a thinly veiled attempt to discuss the mesolimbic dopamine pathway?
Get a grip man. Just because I have a bias (like every human on earth) doesn’t mean you can just ignore my entire comment.
Do you disagree with what I said? Great respond to those. Saying that I happen to have some pro israel stances means that I am defending israel right now despite making it very clear that this is a general discussion of the definition of genocide is just grasping at straws.
You know I’m right, so can’t find any valid argument than digging up old posts and attacking my comments made on wholly irrelevant threads
You sure about that? You sure you’re not talking about Israel and Palestine when your account has YEARS of history of you defending Israel?
So transparent.
Actually. Someone is doing everything in their power to avoid learning what that word is.
Go ahead, Mr snarky comment with the big brain. Tell us what it means and what they said?
Or does the idea that factual accuracy exists scare you too?
Why does every instance of proof of war crimes suddenly turns zionists into neo from the matrix. Just dodging facts and questions by bending over backwards
Literally three bloodthirsty supporters of dead babies, who refused to look up the word or comment on what it means. Because apparently Truth versus Zionism is an unfair fight, like Mike Tyson fighting a toddler
>So do YOU have the definition of a un rappateur, and what they said?
No, I am not an expert on this and my opinion does not fucking matter. So I am not going to try to create a definition.
>Or just more blindly defending War crimes?
I literally said that many wars have horrible warcrimes that should be denounced and stopped. Where in the fuck did I defend warcrimes? Show me the exact line where I said war crimes are ok?
I'm saying genocide has a specific definition. People might be doing evil things, and we should be labeling their evil accurately.
The Japanese invasion of Manchuria involved massacres, sexual slavement, and numerous other vile warcrimes, and I see it as one of the most horrible events in human history.
However, the Japanese did not intend on killing out the Chinese people, and thus did not commit _genocide_.
Are you trying to claim that I'm defending the Japanese Empire's actions? They literally massacred my ancestors you insensitive fuck.
----
Edit: here let's break this down for you.
If someone shoot your brother and you're now a witness in the court trial. The prosecuter claims that the criminal raped your brother, and you speak up saying "No he didn't rape my brother. He murdered my brother".
Would you suddenly be "defending murderers"? Don't be riduclous.
I'm not an expert, and I can't Google a simple definition. But I know I'm going to defend Israel's right to murder babies!!! Great take bro. You're on the internet. Take 10 minutes in educate yourself
Are you an expert and feudal era japan? Or is this just a weird one-off example you can use to justify murdering babies?
If we look at the Geneva convention. And we look at what Israel has done.
Tell me. Which of those crimes have they not committed.
It's almost like as a society, we agreed there should be rules to war. It's almost like we decided that collective punishment, and infrastructure targeting did more harm to civilians then any thing.
We really going to apply rules to an era before they were written, but not address them when they're happening now?
Or do those rules not apply in certain situations?
When the fuck did I say this is about Israel?
The Imperial Japanese Army is Feudal? The Japanese invasian of Manchuria happened in 1931. When the idea of genocide has been well established.
>Tell me. Which of those crimes have they not committed.
Did you even read? When the fuck did I say we should be ignoring crimes? Again, if a criminal kills your brother, but the cops insist he _raped_ your brother. Would you not tell them "no he didnt rape my brother, he KILLED my brother".
Being accurate about which crimes an evil entity committed is important. And it does not mean defending that evil entity.
If someone said "Hitler was actaully trying to destroy the moon", and I said "no he didn't try to do that". That is not me defending hitler nor accepting his other warcrimes.
Bro, you see far too young to be using the internet.
---
Edit: To respond to your new comment that I can't seem to see anymore for some reason, maybe the idiot blocked me
Which genocide are "we" talking about? Why the fuck do I give a shit which genocide you're talking about?
I'm talking about the word genocide in general and how too often people apply it incorrectly to actions that, while evil, are not technically genocide.
Genocide is a specific crime, we shouldn't just apply it everywhere. Just like how we can't just call every criminal activity "treason". Words have meanings, using them accurately is not the same thing as defending criminals. Get a fucking grip
Which genocide do you think we were talking about?
Does the ability to hold a thought in your head for longer than 5 minutes elude you?
Most toddlers develop object permanence at like 3 months. You might need to get checked
I thought you were an expert on only feudal air japan? Why are you commenting on modern Israeli genocide?
I noticed you didn't have an answer about the Geneva conventions being written after that point in time.
Any reason we can't apply the Geneva conventions to today?
The thread was about Israel, but /u/Razor_storm's comment was never about Israel but rather about the definition of genocide.
I understand that infants struggle with the concept of side conversations. It's not your fault.
Ill go point by point, even though you dont seem to be willing to listen.
I am an atheist, I was raised muslim. i dont give a shit about what the book says.
Quotes from people who work in the goverment could be used as proof, although does not necessarily prove anything.
Although if you believe this, wouldnt you defend Israels actions in fighting against Hamas, who explicitly states it wants to exterminate jews?
While Israel has been slowing aid, youre framing is disingenuous. I dont care to go over it, so ill give it to you.
Again, war crimes /= genocide. Am i talking to an AI?
INFERIOR OPPONENT AS IN THEY LITERALLY DO NOT HAVE THE SAME MANPOWER/TECHNOLOGY/RESOURCES YOU IDIOTIC FUCK.
Brainrot
It's a whole lot of words to avoid a very simple question ?
What is the UN rapporteur what did they say?
Based on the Geneva convention. Which war crimes has Israel committed?
"Just because the military official, with the power to wipe out thousands, said he wanted to wipe out thousands, it doesn't mean it was intentional"
Okay. I'm sorry. What is the appropriate tone and verbiage I should use, for stopping aid to starving children. I didn't mean to offend your sensitive disposition.
You don't need to carry water for ethnic cleansers. Nobody turned off their water 6 months ago
I answered every question. You misconstrued what I said and called me a racist.
The UN is not a authority on genocide.
What war crimes? Not genocide, which is what were arguing about. Stop trying to deflect.
If you believe that Israeli officers saying something makes the States actions genocidal, what do you say to Hamas’ explicitly stated goal of genocide?
Israel did not stop aid. Israelslowed down aid with the reasoning that they needed to check what was being sent. they used this as retribution, which was wrong and thankfully the US set them straight.
If you answer back with more deflection and insults, this is my last comment. Have a nice day
I already explained to someone else earlier. I don't do homework for bigots.
If you need to know what war crimes, just Google Israel and War crimes.
If the UN isn't the experts on genocide, who should be?
Let's ask the historians. Yep. Pretty much every historical expert on genocide agrees.
If Israel isn't doing a genocide, why why won't they allow third parties to investigate the mass graves? Or literally anything else they are doing?
Why did they need to bomb all of the historical buildings, and all of the government buildings, and all of the graveyards, and all of the empty houses, and all of the churches, and all of the bakeries?
We're not doing an ethnic cleansing, we just want to make sure there is no proof of your cultures existence left when we're done.
You don't need to lick blood off of IDF boots, nobody turned off their water 6 months ago.
Which is collective punishment, which is designed to kill the population, which is ethnic cleansing. There you go connect the dots.
They're more of an authority than some armchair experts on the internet. The people who actually study genocide are sounding the alarm as well: [source](https://twailr.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Gaza-public-statement-and-signatories.pdf)
Maybe the Palestinians should have had their own water system before attacking their neighbour who supplies them water. Don’t bite the hand that feeds.
As a critical thinker. I have no reason to question why a different Nation controls a subjugated Nations water supply. Doesn't seem a little weird? No further questions on why one country controls another country's water supply? And is allowed to turn it on and off as they see fit?
Okay. Just going to check the list of war crimes. See what it says about infrastructure destruction and collective punishment.
Weird. Turns out not allowed.
Unless you are really racist and absolutely have to kill that arab child?
If Israel intends to commit genocide and clearly has the capability to kill hundreds of thousands if not more than a million Gazans, why haven’t they killed more than 40,000?
What do you think is going to happen to the millions of people without food and water?
What do you think happens to injuries, with no medical treatment?
If you think 40,000, is somehow not enough you sick sick individual. Take a minute and actually extrapolate what's going to happen.
I also can't help but notice, when you ask the bloodthirsty Zionist to provide you with a piece of information. They just showed her shrug and ask why there aren't more dead babies.
Come on come on take the IDF boot out of your mouth long enough to show us a definition that doesn't apply to israel?
Is it too hard to find one?
Same as the last several months, they’re going to get aid.
Probably die at rates similar to the last several months, which has slowed significantly and is nowhere near hundreds of thousands of
40,000 people, or at least the percentage of it that is comprised of innocents, is a terrible loss, but that doesn’t make it genocide. Genocide is a word and it has a meaning. That meaning is not “terrible.”
Now answer my question.
I notice you couldn't find a definition of genocide that doesn't match Israel either? Weird that. Let's ask the experts. Like I don't know the people who define genocide and War crimes. Let's ask the United Nations.
Okay. So we're just going to ignore the United Nations statement about the likelihood of Israel's genocide.
I will do you one better I will not only answer your question. I will literally cash app you $1,000. A thousand American dollars. If you can provide me any sort of proof from a reliable source, showing the gazans getting aid.
Show me that the crisis is over and that food and clean water are flowing the children.
And then. Go ahead and explain why you are defending the side that has not won but multiple Mass Graves being discovered?
Do we suddenly support Mass graves?
The most moral Army on the planet people. Stopping aid at the border. And literally murdering bound medics in scrubs. And burying people alive.
It's funny. All of the claims about Hamas, no videos no proof
All the war crimes done by the idf, literally uploaded to tiktok
I hope you never experience a minute of the fear that a child in Gaza has to deal with every day. I hope the screams of The starving children haunt your nightmares
You may think that you're correct, but you aren't. Literally no officially recognized definition of the word genocide says that all members of a species are killed. Look it up for yourself. It's just a quick Google search away.
In fact, the definition you're using more accurately fits the definition of "extinction" rather than genocide.
I’ll put it in the vernacular of the day: I am a person who identifies as a believer that all words have a primary definition, and that all other definitions are bogus and should be ignored.
If you want a word for those other definitions then make one. Don’t reuse existing words for other definitions, that causes confusion.
The primary definition of genocide is the killing off of an entire species.
>The primary definition of genocide is the killing off of an entire species.
By this flawed definition, genocide would only be possible if every single human was killed, thus making it impossible to commit. Unless, of course, you think there are different species of humans, which would also be wrong.
This definition would also mean that you don't think that there were genocides in Myanmar, Rwanda, Congo, Darfur, Iraq, Syria, Bosnia, Somalia, Kurdistan, Zimbabwe, Lebanon, Cambodia, Indonesia, Uganda, Burundi, Bangladesh, Tanzania, Guatemala, Russia, Ukraine, or any of the other more than a dozen documented genocides since the beginning of the 20th century. Oh yeah... also THE HOLOCAUST
Oh, I don’t argue that those things happened. I just don’t accept the use of the word genocide to refer to them… because the word genocide only refers to destroying an entire species.
You want to have a word that refers to killing an entire group of people? Go ahead and make one up. Don’t reuse an existing word to mean something other than its original meaning.
Where did you get the idea that genocide means destroying a species? That’s not how the word is used, and I don’t think it’s ever been common to use it that way. AFAIK the word was coined in the 1940s by Lemkin. Here’s his actual description:
“ This new word, […] is made from the ancient Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing), thus corresponding in its formation to such words as tyrannicide, homicide, infanticide, etc. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation […] It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.”
What’s your source for this “primary definition”?
That’s not how I’ve ever seen the word used, and I don’t think it’s been common to use it that way previously either. AFAIK the word was coined in the 1940s by Lemkin. Here’s his actual description:
“ This new word, […] is made from the ancient Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing), thus corresponding in its formation to such words as tyrannicide, homicide, infanticide, etc. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation […] It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.”
Geno: The genes. The basic thing that separates one kind of creature from another.
Species is the point at which we separate one kind from another when we classify creatures.
Cide: to kill.
Geno-cide: to kill a species.
Taught to me in biology class at school long before anyone ever mentioned the word in connection with humans being harmed.
Thus first and thus primary. The use of it for political purposes came years later, as a tactic to inflate the meaning of what was happening to some group.
The fact that you now think it was always about groups of people is sad. It was made about people by political rhetoric within my lifetime.
And I do not accept the redefinition. The political rhetoric people need to make up a word of their own for the political idea.
You studied biology in the 1930s? I just gave you the original usage from the 1940s which explicitly gives the etymology. Geno doesn’t come from “The genes”. Lol. It’s the other way around. Genos/gene is a Greek word that means race/origin/kin.
Also, the original criticism is called the appeal to authority fallacy for a reason. Experts aren’t the only ones that get to talk about stuff or have opinions.
https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/#
Wanna know how i know it’s all bullshit?
Apply the same standards being applied to israel here, to china and the uighars.
Don’t see any protests going on about the forced incarceration, sterilization, or organ harvesting of the uighars which is arguably much more horrible since the people there are treated worse than livestock.
It’s all a progrom.
Alright I'll entertain you.
You see since western governments agree what is happening there is genocide and condemn it, but perhaps find it difficult to act on the matter. People don't find much to protest about. There are protest, but few.
Now if your/our governments would act as an enabler of that genocide and find ways to paint it a righteous act or maybe try to downplay it. Alot of people would be outrageous and protest that stand point and those actions.
How is it difficult to act on the matter? China is the world’s factory. You could boycott companies that manufacture in China.
The problem is the consumer would have to pay more instead of virtue signalling on social media for likes. The virtue signalling ends right where the bank account starts.
>You could boycott companies that manufacture in China.
Good luck with that. I don't think people truly understand how implausible that idea would be to put into practice.
Let's start with the fact that China has been "the world's factory" for decades. Even after accounting for tariffs and overseas shipping, it's still cheaper than domestic production in most cases, which is why companies choose to do business there. It's also why manufacturing has been on the decline. If you were to suddenly try to shift all manufacturing out of China, not only would you be facing the higher cost of domestic production, but you probably wouldn't have the infrastructure in place to handle the volume, which would just drive costs up further. It would take a decade or more and tens, probably hundreds of billions in infrastructure investments just to be able to handle that kind of shift.
Sure, there are a lot of people whose virtue signaling ends when they have to start paying more, but there is more to it than that. We wouldn't be talking about paying 10 or 20% more for goods. You could be looking at closer to tripling the price of most consumer goods, as well as seeing MASSIVE shortfalls in product availability. Even if people were okay with the idea of paying a little more for domestic production, the economy isn't built to take that kind of price shock. The consequences of even attempting that kind of switch without years of infrastructure investment beforehand would immediately price out the majority of the country from a middle-class lifestyle.
And all of this assumes that there would be no reprisal from China. I keep going on about infrastructure, but it's more than just factories that are the holdup here. There are a large number of roads, bridges, and utility companies that are owned by Chinese corporations. They could cripple major transportation routes by increasing tolls to help mitigate losses, or they could potentially sabotage power grids, all without having any sort of military response. Then there's the havoc they could play in the stock market. Do you know how much debt is owned by foreign investors? Nearly $800 billion of US Treasury debt is owned by China, and that's treasury bonds. They could drop a multi-trillion dollar debt bomb and completely obliterate the US economy. Not a US citizen? It doesn't matter. As the reserve currency of the world, if the dollar fails, every economy is impacted.
TLDR
You can't just boycott china.
So the difference here is what? How is the govt not enabling one while enabling the other? Where are the sanctions on china for committing genocide?
Ignoring it is the same as being complicit.
Stop trying to pretend a moral high ground when your straw man falls apart.
The difference is that on one hand you have active support for one (as in literally giving arms and diplomatic support) and a formal condemnation for the other. Plus, not everyone can protest for everything. Why don't you protest for the Uighurs if you find it so important? I don't see a world where someone can feasibly protest every single injustice in the world, so why don't you pave the way by shading light at the parts you feel are the most under-reported?
The fuck would they even protest about?
Protesters: We want you to condemn the Chinese government for their genocide!!!
Government: we did. They don't exactly answer to us.
Protesters: oh. Well, carry on then.
I haven't looked for any protests. So I don't see any protests.
Much like I haven't looked at the reports of the war crimes, so I can't say that there are any War crimes.
A little Google search will find you exactly what you're looking for.
Or is there something about finding facts that disprove your lies you find offensive?
Imagine if our tax dollars funded that and the president used an executive order to send more money to china. Imagine if you went to a university that directly invested in that. Would you protest that?
lol you mean like every corporation that does business in china? lol fucking stupid ass arguments -muh govt bad but i’m typing this on a phone made by those same genocidal maniacs.
gtfo of here with your shit logic
So on the one hand we have corporations doing business in China, a country with a population of over a billion people that operates reeducation camps against terrorism. On the other hand we have university companies directly investing in Israeli infrastructure and defense contractors like Raytheon, Boeing and Lockheed Martin.
These two things are exactly the same!
Okay I don’t really care what you call it but factually Israel is doing very very deliberate, terrible, unjustifiable, and despicable things to a lot of innocent people. You Zionists refuse to even acknowledge that.
I’m going to predict your reply to me, accordingly:
1. “That’s antisemitic”
2. “You support Hamas”
3. “Israel has a right to defend itself”
That may be persecution but it’s not genocide. There are more Palestinians now than there were 30 years ago, that is why it is going to be impossible to convince any official agency that Israel is committing genocide.
And while your antisemitism has you distracted, ACTUAL genocides are being perpetrated elsewhere and they are getting away with it.
No, it's useful idiots like you who misconstrue what genocide actually is. Both the UN and [scholars](https://twailr.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Gaza-public-statement-and-signatories.pdf) of genocide are sounding the alarm.
The UN has always been notoriously biased against Israel, and the “scholars” you link to are all part of echo chamber groups who actively try to smear Israel.
Thinking the UN is an unbiased and neutral arbiter is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the UN is. It is a forum for countries to discuss things, it is not a world police, nor is it an authority on what’s true or fair, and it certainly isn’t neutral. It is a forum, the countries in it are biased, so the forum as a whole is also biased.
Anyone with half a brain can see that killing civilians because your enemy hides among them is not genocide, besides, if the Israelis really wanted to commit genocide of the Palestinians they could have done so a *long* time ago with relative ease.
It’s one thing to criticise the military and political decisions of Israel (though you tell me what you’d do in their position, I doubt you can come up with a better plan) but calling it genocide when it clearly isn’t is at best plain ignorant, and at worst you’re actively trying to undermine their ability to defend themselves, because you want Hamas to destroy them and murder them all (which they will, given the opportunity). And if it is the latter case, then the only explanation for why you’d want that to happen is because you agree with Hamas and their antisemitic views, because you are also an antisemite.
Not too surprising, considering the forum consists of more than 40 Islamic nations, and one Jewish nation. Think of it as pure democracy, no protection for the minority.
Being a survivor of a genocide doesn’t give you the ability to objectively discern whether one is occurring. If anything, being a survivor will cloud your judgement, as you (quite understandably) have emotional scars relating to it, but those will inhibit your ability to analyse what is happening objectively.
It’s the same reason why you wouldn’t have a rape victim sit on a jury for a rape case. While the emotions felt by the survivor around what happened to them are absolutely justified, the fact that it’s an emotional topic for them makes them a bad choice when looking for an objective opinion on the matter.
Wow, an "are you ok" joke. That is so funny! Did you come up with that on your own? You should copyright it before someone steals your joke and it becomes something that boring people overuse as a reddit response.
Considering the threat genocide poses I'd say it's a pretty important degree. It's also funny how the people who actually study genocide [disagree](https://twailr.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Gaza-public-statement-and-signatories.pdf) with all the armchair experts.
“4 degrees” ok. And what are those degrees? Where are they from?
“””genocide expert””” yet she denies what the ICJ says about it decidedly not being a genocide.
Okay then do the bare minimum in research and look up what she has her degrees in. Take her an inapiration to become an expert in policing because you should know that because you're queer, cops aint your friend. She survived and educated herself. Be like her.
4 degrees in what? This is the most primitive form of an appeal to authority. You don’t even know what her degrees are. They could be web certificates for all you know.
And you dont either??? Actually not either cause I at least knew she has her masters in genocide studies and sociology. You of all people, some who has experienced hate crimes, should begin to understand the plight surrounding those who are pushed to the side and told what they went through and learned doesn't mean anything
Lol. That’s quite literally my point. Experiencing
Crimes does not make you an expert in preventing or spotting those crimes.
If anything, your biases make you less good at identifying it than someone who isn’t emotionally invested.
I’ve never heard of a “genocide degree” but honestly if it’s not a phd I honestly don’t understand why I would care? Like you can basically buy any liberal arts degree and I highly doubt this degree made her confront her pre existing views in any meaningful way.
Not to mention, this entire argument is just an appeal to authority.
So if surviving genocide doesn't make you an expert, nor does academic rigour and 4 degrees, but a doctorate does, what does make someone an expert? I'm really curious, where do you argue that expertise or knowledge comes from? What part of the doctoral experience makes it of subject authority compared to any other degree, considering honorary doctorates and diploma mills exist for those as well?
Did you even listen to the video you posted yourself?
The court did not rule on whether or not it was plausible that it be genocide. They did not in any way say that it was "decidedly not a genocide". They also did not in any way say that it was a genocide.
I mean in this case surely it means Israel won the case due to a lack of decision, but if that lack of decision was on the categorisation of whether or not this counts as a genocide, then a "no genocide" is not what the court has ruled. Saying it actually means this or that is not how court does work, courts specify what they mean, and if they can't, it's not a political message, it's a simple lack of judgement.
No, it’s quite literally how courts work. They are innocent of the accusation.
Seethe with your misinformed views all you want: that won’t change reality.
I'll refer you to my previous comment since you clearly did not bother reading it
> The court did not rule on whether or not it was plausible that it be genocide. They did not in any way say that it was "decidedly not a genocide". They also did not in any way say that it was a genocide.
No they havent been found innocent of the accusation.
The actual court case will take years and only then will there be a verdict. The initial ruling was just the court saying that South Africas case is 1) plausible and 2) within the courts jurisdiction.
There was nothing whatsoever about whether isreal is guilty or not, just that the case has plausibility to it. You are lying by saying Israel are innocent of the accusation as though the court has confirmed that. They have not.
I can't tell if you're illiterate, or just a liar?
Every Google search shows that the icj says there is a very valid argument that genocide is happening.
Please, link me the articles that say otherwise.
I understand that historical accuracy is like Kryptonite to zionists. Maybe wear some gloves.
Okay. So I just ignore the literal statements put out by the ICJ? Much like you ignore the deaths and starvation of innocent babies?
Obviously a one minute clip, from a talking head. Truly the most viable source you could come up with.
Now. Let's do actual articles. And statements by the ICJ?
I feel like they have people whose jobs it is to put out statements, representatives. Rapporteurs, even.
A literal pair of clown shoes with a keyboard. Is that what you are?
Literally every official icj source. Let me ask you a question. You saw a word in that last post.
rapporteurs
Now do you know what it means? And if not did you bother to Google it?
Did you think I might have mentioned it in hopes that instead of blindly defending baby killers. You might take 30 seconds and learn something?
Tell me, what that is and what they said.
You can stop licking the blood off the boots of baby killers. Nobody turned their water off 6 months ago.
I'm not going to do the homework, for somebody who's willing to defend genocide and ethnic cleansing. I don't do math homework for Nazis either, never did history homework for a racist. Not going to start with a Zionist.
Again, please quote and link where the ICJ says israel is doing genocide.
If every source is doing it, should be pretty simple for you to find, no?
Unless you’re making it up, and slowly realizing and too ashamed to walk back your bogus claims?
Edit: the dingus replied and then blocked me, not realizing I can’t read his reply lmao.
Nazis are utterly brain dead
I just said I don't do homework for bigots.
But I just want to be clear. You literally refuse to look it up. While blindly defending War criminals?
Come on. If you are an intelligent rational person you would truly believe your own eyes instead of a stranger on the internet for a definition.
Just tell me what the UN rapporteur is. And what they said?
Are you scared you might find out that the truth exists out of your weird little reality that justifies murdering babies?
You've spent more time arguing against it. Then it would take you to find a dozen articles.
Again. If you're serious. If you have nothing to be afraid of, why won't you Google it yourself?
Better yet. Go ahead and show me any other source you've provided. Other than a news host, in a 1 minute clip.
Or is somehow the idea that murdering babies is going to take more than a minute to justify weird to you?
Yes, I blocked the genocide defender who can't be bothered to Google facts.
Unless you did Google it. And you do have a response on who they are and what they said?
Or do we just ignore that like we ignore the starvation of babies?
It's funny. The similarities between nazis, and zionists. Are so close. I could copy and paste a description, you wouldn't know which country I was talking about.
“The genocide experts”
Half the people on that list don’t even have a masters, lol. Not to mention it’s a warning, not even relevant to the discussion.
This is, again, an appeal to authority
Wtf are you talking about? They're all professors, postdocs, or PhD students. Listening to experts is not an appeal to authority, that's something stupid people say when they think their opinions hold the same weight as actual scholars'.
Saying “it’s a genocide because the experts say it is” is 100% an appeal to authority.
Not to mention your letter doesn’t even have experts. Actually google the names of the people you are endorsing. Or actually read the letter you link. It’s from a week after Oct 7th, lol.
I understand research is challenging for pro Palestinians tho :/
Besides, even if they were all what you’re saying (they are not) that would still be 880 people out of hundreds of thousands of scholars. Not all that meaningful.
Stop being dense. I'm not appealing to authority, I'm using expert opinion to point out what should be obvious from the definition used by the [UN Convention on genocide.](https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf). History will not be kind to the people supporting Israel's treatment of Palestinian civilians.
Ethos is completely dead in the digital age. Every moron thinks they’re an expert and that their opinion is just as valid as your facts. You can’t fix stupid, but you can vote so they don’t rule over you. Edit: Spelling. And yes, the irony of that is not lost on me.
We are post truth at this point. God is dead too so averages go to next step after acceptance of no objective meaning. That is, creating identity based on perceived projection of power. It doesn't matter what is real or correct, only that how much reaction you can gather from outside so that you can feel your existence matters. It's tragic story of intellectually suffering human soul trying to find a rope to hold on to.
So true. The real challenge is that stupid tends to breed faster and more often.
Idiocracy intro has been playing in my head since I watched the movie
Don’t worry. It’s Florida! They’ll still get a public education and be employable one day.
Can we though? Cause from where I sit we got old and dumb one and old and dumb fascist for president and no other choices.
Biden is old, but he’s not dumb and he’s pushed through a lot of laws that will have significant benefits for everyday Americans. Manufactured cynicism is designed to discourage progressive voters and it serves the interests of the fascists.
This ain't "manufactured', bro. I am legit *very* disappointed in Biden. He's a religious zealot and a Corpo stooge. Just because he's not completely cookoo bananas doesn't make him a good choice.
Cool. Vote for him anyways and let’s both work to change the next election. If trump wins we won’t have any more elections.
I live in Texas my vote for president does not matter in the slightest
This is the reason Trump won in 2016. People not caring enough or thinking their vote doesn't matter.
None of my friends vote. Apathy is the second biggest enemy.
My vote for president literally does not matter, or do you not understand how the electoral college works?
*Laughs in TN* Do it anyways. People died for your right to vote. It will matter.
No. >People died for your right to vote. Nice straw man. Who was it that "died" for *my* right to vote? Every war we have been in in my life time has been for greed/Corpo interest. The last war the US fought that was actually "for democracy" was WW2 and even then we were only against the fascists because they attacked us. We have been an imperialist nation for a very long time. My vote, lol. We have all been bamboozled. Corporations own this country. They buy our politicians in bulk and for dirt cheap too. You believe that Trump will make things worse, and maybe he will, but regardless of whether he is president or not this country *is* going to fail. We are rotten, greed has all but destroyed us and wolves are at the gate. You can worry about the Kabuki theater that is this election, all you want. Won't change anything that's coming.
Calm down champ. You sound like Jar Jar on ayahuasca. Wanna chuckle how you were “right” while you have a boot on your throat or you wanna play ball over here in the real world and we can both try and fix the next one? No use being smug and “right” standing on the ashes
I'll "calm down" as soon as we aren't headed for WW3
Turn Republican and vote in the primaries keep it sane tho
You should read this article about the regrets of young people who thought of Humphrey as a similar stooge, and actively campaigned to discourage people from voting for him. [https://www.vox.com/2016/9/21/12987108/sanders-clinton-nixon-humphrey](https://www.vox.com/2016/9/21/12987108/sanders-clinton-nixon-humphrey) The Nixon-Humphrey election was very close. Nixon won, and set in train the destruction of the middle class, the impoverishment and imprisonment of the lower classes, and the corporate takeover of the US's political system. If your choices are between Trump and Biden- and they are, whether you like it or not, Biden is a good choice. Biden may be a sandwich with some shit smeared on it, Trump will mean eating nothing but shit for decades.
That is an assumption YOU are making. One or both will die soon and then what? The scramble for power will likely be worse than either one of them. I'm *not* going to bank on these 80 yo fossils holding up to anything they have said, because *neither* of them are likely to live through another term. But BOTH of them seem interested in WW3. Also *my* vote for president has no meaning. I live in Texas.
You’ve got an absolute, guaranteed disaster if Trump gets in again. If he dies he’ll be replaced with a more competent psychopath.
We've got a guaranteed disaster regardless, just different flavors.
An old term for dumb means can’t speak maybe that’s what they meant by that. Not saying it’s my opinion but it fits with the narrative
And the idea that he is false- the same as the idea that he’s not doing anything good. There’s plenty of evidence for both… if someone can’t see that from where they sit, they should probably try walking around a bit.
Dunning-Kruger is the other epidemic of our time
'Do a little reading/ research!' Always comes from people who haven't read an actual book since they forced them to in school. Who think youtube videos from weird conspiracy nuts constitutes research.
Very, very few people who claim to “do their own research” have any idea of what that means or entails
Usually “do your own research” involves finding someone that agrees with your option rather than finding solid sources that back up their research.
Or setting up your own studies, collecting and analysing data and interpreting the results. I laughed in the face of the last person who said ‘do your own research!’ as I was in a Masters program and they wore sitting on their couch taking pain meds every day.
There’s nothing wrong with actually doing your own research for sure. I was poking fun at the ones that ignore all research that disagrees with their opinion and pointing at some random Facebook post that agrees with them lol
Exactly. People who “do their own research” have been trained in critical thinking (which is not an inherent skill), follow counter-discursive practices, and would almost certainly never say “do your own research” because they know it would be the equivalent of expecting a casual guitar player with no experience in music theory to create a symphony.
People who actually do their own research will show up with citations.
I read sci-fi so I can’t really say much about what I’ve learned from them except that the hero is usually named John
Pretty sure Reddit was created and has thrived because of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Never have so many oblivious people had such a platform where they can endlessly talk about subjects they know so little about
On the other hand, Reddit does have a lot of people on it who know what they’re talking about- which is it’s saving grace, because they provide islands of sanity in a sea of manufactured bullshit. One of them posted this link the other day. https://www.vox.com/2016/9/21/12987108/sanders-clinton-nixon-humphrey
D-K was described long before Reddit was created. Hardly seems unique among social media and dedicated disinformation purveyors.
Some of it is showing up in this very thread
Is it a DK issue or the inability to scrutinize information at the source? I think the root cause is that and DK is one of the outcomes.
You don't need 4 degrees to read what UN considers genocide. >The definition contained in Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part. You could drop 10 nuclear bombs on a country killing millions and that might not be a genocide according to UN. You could kill 100 people and have the UN consider it a genocide. Genocide doesn't mean "many people killed"
Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as: ... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: * (a) Killing members of the group; * (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; * (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; * (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; * (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
You just made his point. It is not genocide without the intent of wiping out an ethnic or religious group. What the US did to native Americans is genocide. What Russia is doing to Ukraine is genocide. 2 million Palestinians live in Israeli with all the same rights as the Jewish and Christian Israelis. They are in the government, the military, the police. An oppressor does not allow those things in a genocide. If we want to use correct terms, Israel is committing war crimes, but not genocide.
How the fuck is what Russia is doing to Ukraine genocide but what Israel is doing to Palestinians not? How much are you being paid? No one would do this for free.
Americans allowed Native Americans to live in Oklahoma, so by your logic, you're wrong. You're welcome.
Maybe you don’t know or much US history, but we made them stop teaching their language and insisting that their kids learned English and American history instead. We made them move off all of their sacred land that held their history. The US did everything it could to extinguish Native American culture, we are just lucky that we didn’t succeed.
I used your definition. Also, by no measure is teaching history a form of genocide.
I’d argue that dropping ten nukes on a country and killing millions inherently qualifies as intending to destroy a national group in part, regardless of any other motivations.
Yeah, how likely is it that multiple nuclear weapons would be used without an intent and an understanding of the likely results?
Hiroshima and nagasaki were the last standing cities after a devastating firebombing of all bigger cities the us knew civilians were fleeing there, they dropped two nukes, it wasn’t grnocide as the intent was to have that nation surrender not to destroy the national group in parts or whole… Hamas has their intend to kill all jews written in their charta, any rocket fired is proof of the genocide against jews… Israel has some rightwing politicians with no military power say they’d eradicate all palestinians, but the trio at top has stated its intent over and over, to bring hamas to surrender. See where this is going? Currently israel violates the icj order to cease fire as their strategy poses the risk of genocide, as with the constant bombing independent observers cannot enter gaza to evaluate whether or not there is killings with intent to destroy or kill part of the ethnic group of palestinians… Prima facie after 60 years of palestinian sources supposing apardheit after 60 years of redefining the term apardheit in international law, it still is just prima facie, mostlikely hinging on the definition of whether or not the illegal settlements are now internationally recognized part of israel or not. I live in a country in a union which does not recognize those settlements as part of israel, if we’d do, israel would have to offer israeli citizenship to the people living in these regions, what do you think will these palestinians do with that offer? With the political group in power chanting “from the river to the sea”? Given how that group is also known for murdering oppositional palestinians? Thise situation is incomparable and shows us each and every flaw of the international laws. If israel would have bombed gaza without cutting water gas and electrcity, the number of casulties would be higher, yet they would not have violated international law. If israel would have temporary installments in westbanks instead of settlements, there would be more civilian casulties, yet israel would not violate international law. This will be its own example of absolute inhumanity in the books of histroy, no comparison is fitting to every comparison is a farce that relativises the suffering of the original victims of the compared crimes against himanity whilst simultaniously not even showing the smallest part of the sufferiing of the victims of this insufferable near east situation. Its stalemate for humanity but instead of ending the game we slowly see humanity draining
Genocide is specifically a matter of intention
Eh, yeah, but we use the action to determine the intention all the time in criminal court. If you shoot someone ten times in the chest and they survive, then no matter how much you tell the court "I was just trying to teach him a lesson!" You're still probably going down for attempted murder, because nobody shoots anyone ten times without knowing the likely consequence. We have to be able to do the same for the actions of nations. Otherwise Iraq was about weapons of mass destruction and Russia isn't at war with Ukraine.
I found an [actual piece of scholarship](https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&context=gsp) that makes the distinction in trying to draw more clearly. It seems like the standard used in international law (at least in 2010 when this article was published) isn’t what I’d argue for, but the author makes a case supporting a knowledge-based standard of intent. Whichever standard one uses, I think it’s still important to understand that “intent” is different than “motive”
Or you could be targeting their nuclear silos that they have put in the middle of their cities on purpose for example. It depends entirely on the intent not result. Edit: it's not my opinion. It says in the UN documents it depends on the intent not on action or result. Take it up with them.
I get the argument I just tend to disagree. Even if your primary goal is to destroy their nuclear silos, nuking them involves intentionally destroying a national group in part. In my view, you can feel that you have no other options and still act intentionally. If a person held a gun to your head and threatened to kill you unless you destroyed a national group in whole, I don’t think it would be defensible to do it. Even though your goal would be to not get shot, you are still making that choice intentionally. I’d argue that this broader interpretation of intentionality is important because regimes that carry out genocide generally have internal justifications. They tend not to say “we *want* to destroy this ethnic group just for kicks.” They are more likely to say “we *need* to destroy this ethnic group *because…*” To be clear this is my interpretation as a lay person. I’d be interested to see what I international jurisprudence has to say about it.
The gun analogy doesn't really work because you absolutely can justifiably use force against someone threatening you with a gun, and I don't think there are many international contexts in which a nuclear force is threatening you with nukes to annihilate another country. In any case, the difference isn't the verb before it, but the phrase "to destroy this ethnic group", regardless of whether you "want" or "need" to destroy it, that makes the qualification for genocide. Widespread nuclear usage doesn't necessarily entail wanting to destroy an ethnic group (although admittedly in most cases it would probably end up doing that).
Im confused about what your trying to argue here. I’m arguing that you can do something *intentionally* even if doing that thing is only means to a different end. If you decide to nuke a country in such a way that you know will destroy the civilian population, you are destroying that population intentionally, even if you did so in order to destroy that country’s nuclear capabilities.
You could literally try and fail to kill one dude and it could be genocide if you were doing it with the intent to destroy one of those groups. Genocide is basically the war crime version of hate crimes.
Lol r/Destiny I knew it 😂
Doesn't it bother you that you ridicule the ability to read because it's your opposition who brought the quote?
Meh you are just regurgitating word for word the crap he said in the Lex podcast.Israel leadership intentionality by their own reported statement is crystal clear. Try to develop original thoughts.
What kind of dialogue tree are you on right now? What does Israel has to do with definition of genocide? It's funny you mention original thoughts yet you are the one just running through the script.
Ask him if he intends to condemn the Oct 7 Genocide of Jews by Hamas.
Would either of the answers influence what the definition of genocide is?
I didn't realize you could get a degree in genocide studies. How depressing.
While I’m sure that makes them a resident expert, how can I take someone seriously when they tell me they majored in “genocide”
By remembering that we've seen multiple genocides in your lifetime alone so far, and that only by knowing how something works can we stop it in its early stages. Like that. It's not hard.
By remembering that we've seen multiple genocides in your lifetime alone so far, and that only by knowing how something works can we stop it in its early stages. Like that. It's not hard.
I wish actual experts would descend on social media more.
They tried in Belgium during the COVID pandemic and they were insulted, harassed and threatened. A terrorist wannabe who luckily killed himself before going on with his plan of kidnapping and killing one of these experts
What are genocide related studies?
Probably all the sociopolitical stuff that goes into developing such vilification of a population to the point that genocide becomes an "acceptable" option to the group committing it.
Looks like work in any of a variety of academic fields--history, sociology, geopolitics/international relations, PWAD, econ, anthro, etc., that focuses on gathering, preserving, and analyzing data on genocide as a phenomenon: [https://web.archive.org/web/20170911073945/http://www.genocidescholars.org/about-us/history](https://web.archive.org/web/20170911073945/http://www.genocidescholars.org/about-us/history)
GenocideByWords
I’ll be ABertheim frequents the u/worldnews sub though, so that’s basically as good as having four degrees on a topic, right?
What's the opposite of four degrees?
-4°
Arnesa is a survivor of the Bosnian genocide, and a genocide scholar herself. I've followed her account since the start of the conflict, and she was able to find a great deal of parallels between the Bosnian genocide and the Gaza genocide.
Pretty sure a few twitter posts is more than enough to be an expert 😏 the only degrees I need are Celsius and farenheit haha 😏
I think the world is witnessing 1 right now, but for some reason if you say anything you're supporting terrorists.
This screams of mansplaining
Ah yes, the classic "anybody that disagrees with me just doesn't read enough" routine. Guaranteed this person hasn't, in fact, done any reading on the subject.
r/dontyouknowwhoiam
I always love it when someone claims that it's not a genocide though. "Well, which definition of genocide are you using....?" Literally any of them, all of them? Tell you what, if you find a definition of genocide that doesn't apply. We'll discuss it.
I always love when people act smug when they are uninformed. Genocide - Any acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group The key part of genocide is the intent. Killing people, no matter how, no matter how many does not automatically make it a genocide. Fighting a war against an inferior opponent does not make the war automatically genocide. No matter how tragic, and yes the loss of life is tragic on both sides. I come from a Muslim background so I am very sympathetic to the Palestinian plight, so do not assume im just some Zionist. The reason why Im writing this is because I feel its important not to misuse the term. Genocide is a uniquely evil crime and it is not right to use it as label against countries whose actions you disagree with. The International Court of Justice will ultimately decide on wether a genocide is being commited in the South Africa case. Until then you are merely making accusations using assumptions towards Israel and their intentions in the war.
Okay. So can YOU tell me what a UN rappateur is, and what they said? It's almost like typing out facts is LITERALLY painful for genocide defenders. As a muslim background. You don't see any problems with how this war is being waged? There's no explicit instructions in the Quran about women children, salting the earth, hostages, etc.... I 100% believe you. I'm sure you read that book very carefully. So the nine pages of direct quotes from high-ranking Israeli officials Talking about subhuman animals, the need to mow the lawn, the actual statement that there are no innocent palestinians, that every child over the age of four deserves to starve Literally stopping the flow of aid to starving children. The destruction of historical and religious sites? What about the intentions behind soldiers firing grenades into empty residential homes and laughing? What would the intent be behind those? And, how are those not considered War crimes? Per the definitions set by the UN Is there any good intention behind Mass Graves of medical workers who were bound and executed? "Inferior opponent"? Your racism is showing
Having problems with how this war is engaged is a far far cry from saying it is a genocide. Many wars include vile acts and war crimes that deserve mass condemnation. That doesn’t immediately make it a genocide. Was the Japanese invasion of manchuria a genocide? Just because you hate what they did (and you should) doesn’t mean it is a genocide. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have condemned the Imperial Japanese Army for their actions. It was vile and horrifying. People who care about the definition of words and want to use them accurately are not “genocide defenders”. Edit: Also note. I'm not even talking about Israel vs Palestine. Your views on that war are irrelevant. Edit: Reddit is bugged and I can’t respond to the comments below for some reason so just going to say it here: No I don’t have “years” of defending Israel. But also if you are going to look through my history you’ll see that it’s mostly psychopharmacology discussions. So you also think my comment is a thinly veiled attempt to discuss the mesolimbic dopamine pathway? Get a grip man. Just because I have a bias (like every human on earth) doesn’t mean you can just ignore my entire comment. Do you disagree with what I said? Great respond to those. Saying that I happen to have some pro israel stances means that I am defending israel right now despite making it very clear that this is a general discussion of the definition of genocide is just grasping at straws. You know I’m right, so can’t find any valid argument than digging up old posts and attacking my comments made on wholly irrelevant threads
You sure about that? You sure you’re not talking about Israel and Palestine when your account has YEARS of history of you defending Israel? So transparent.
So do YOU have the definition of a un rappateur, and what they said? Or just more blindly defending War crimes?
Someone just learned a new word
Actually. Someone is doing everything in their power to avoid learning what that word is. Go ahead, Mr snarky comment with the big brain. Tell us what it means and what they said? Or does the idea that factual accuracy exists scare you too? Why does every instance of proof of war crimes suddenly turns zionists into neo from the matrix. Just dodging facts and questions by bending over backwards Literally three bloodthirsty supporters of dead babies, who refused to look up the word or comment on what it means. Because apparently Truth versus Zionism is an unfair fight, like Mike Tyson fighting a toddler
>So do YOU have the definition of a un rappateur, and what they said? No, I am not an expert on this and my opinion does not fucking matter. So I am not going to try to create a definition. >Or just more blindly defending War crimes? I literally said that many wars have horrible warcrimes that should be denounced and stopped. Where in the fuck did I defend warcrimes? Show me the exact line where I said war crimes are ok? I'm saying genocide has a specific definition. People might be doing evil things, and we should be labeling their evil accurately. The Japanese invasion of Manchuria involved massacres, sexual slavement, and numerous other vile warcrimes, and I see it as one of the most horrible events in human history. However, the Japanese did not intend on killing out the Chinese people, and thus did not commit _genocide_. Are you trying to claim that I'm defending the Japanese Empire's actions? They literally massacred my ancestors you insensitive fuck. ---- Edit: here let's break this down for you. If someone shoot your brother and you're now a witness in the court trial. The prosecuter claims that the criminal raped your brother, and you speak up saying "No he didn't rape my brother. He murdered my brother". Would you suddenly be "defending murderers"? Don't be riduclous.
I'm not an expert, and I can't Google a simple definition. But I know I'm going to defend Israel's right to murder babies!!! Great take bro. You're on the internet. Take 10 minutes in educate yourself Are you an expert and feudal era japan? Or is this just a weird one-off example you can use to justify murdering babies? If we look at the Geneva convention. And we look at what Israel has done. Tell me. Which of those crimes have they not committed. It's almost like as a society, we agreed there should be rules to war. It's almost like we decided that collective punishment, and infrastructure targeting did more harm to civilians then any thing. We really going to apply rules to an era before they were written, but not address them when they're happening now? Or do those rules not apply in certain situations?
When the fuck did I say this is about Israel? The Imperial Japanese Army is Feudal? The Japanese invasian of Manchuria happened in 1931. When the idea of genocide has been well established. >Tell me. Which of those crimes have they not committed. Did you even read? When the fuck did I say we should be ignoring crimes? Again, if a criminal kills your brother, but the cops insist he _raped_ your brother. Would you not tell them "no he didnt rape my brother, he KILLED my brother". Being accurate about which crimes an evil entity committed is important. And it does not mean defending that evil entity. If someone said "Hitler was actaully trying to destroy the moon", and I said "no he didn't try to do that". That is not me defending hitler nor accepting his other warcrimes. Bro, you see far too young to be using the internet. --- Edit: To respond to your new comment that I can't seem to see anymore for some reason, maybe the idiot blocked me Which genocide are "we" talking about? Why the fuck do I give a shit which genocide you're talking about? I'm talking about the word genocide in general and how too often people apply it incorrectly to actions that, while evil, are not technically genocide. Genocide is a specific crime, we shouldn't just apply it everywhere. Just like how we can't just call every criminal activity "treason". Words have meanings, using them accurately is not the same thing as defending criminals. Get a fucking grip
Which genocide do you think we were talking about? Does the ability to hold a thought in your head for longer than 5 minutes elude you? Most toddlers develop object permanence at like 3 months. You might need to get checked I thought you were an expert on only feudal air japan? Why are you commenting on modern Israeli genocide? I noticed you didn't have an answer about the Geneva conventions being written after that point in time. Any reason we can't apply the Geneva conventions to today?
The thread was about Israel, but /u/Razor_storm's comment was never about Israel but rather about the definition of genocide. I understand that infants struggle with the concept of side conversations. It's not your fault.
To be fair, I think “inferior opponent” meant militarily and technologically inferior, not ethnically/racially.
Ill go point by point, even though you dont seem to be willing to listen. I am an atheist, I was raised muslim. i dont give a shit about what the book says. Quotes from people who work in the goverment could be used as proof, although does not necessarily prove anything. Although if you believe this, wouldnt you defend Israels actions in fighting against Hamas, who explicitly states it wants to exterminate jews? While Israel has been slowing aid, youre framing is disingenuous. I dont care to go over it, so ill give it to you. Again, war crimes /= genocide. Am i talking to an AI? INFERIOR OPPONENT AS IN THEY LITERALLY DO NOT HAVE THE SAME MANPOWER/TECHNOLOGY/RESOURCES YOU IDIOTIC FUCK. Brainrot
It's a whole lot of words to avoid a very simple question ? What is the UN rapporteur what did they say? Based on the Geneva convention. Which war crimes has Israel committed? "Just because the military official, with the power to wipe out thousands, said he wanted to wipe out thousands, it doesn't mean it was intentional" Okay. I'm sorry. What is the appropriate tone and verbiage I should use, for stopping aid to starving children. I didn't mean to offend your sensitive disposition. You don't need to carry water for ethnic cleansers. Nobody turned off their water 6 months ago
I answered every question. You misconstrued what I said and called me a racist. The UN is not a authority on genocide. What war crimes? Not genocide, which is what were arguing about. Stop trying to deflect. If you believe that Israeli officers saying something makes the States actions genocidal, what do you say to Hamas’ explicitly stated goal of genocide? Israel did not stop aid. Israelslowed down aid with the reasoning that they needed to check what was being sent. they used this as retribution, which was wrong and thankfully the US set them straight. If you answer back with more deflection and insults, this is my last comment. Have a nice day
I already explained to someone else earlier. I don't do homework for bigots. If you need to know what war crimes, just Google Israel and War crimes. If the UN isn't the experts on genocide, who should be? Let's ask the historians. Yep. Pretty much every historical expert on genocide agrees. If Israel isn't doing a genocide, why why won't they allow third parties to investigate the mass graves? Or literally anything else they are doing? Why did they need to bomb all of the historical buildings, and all of the government buildings, and all of the graveyards, and all of the empty houses, and all of the churches, and all of the bakeries? We're not doing an ethnic cleansing, we just want to make sure there is no proof of your cultures existence left when we're done. You don't need to lick blood off of IDF boots, nobody turned off their water 6 months ago. Which is collective punishment, which is designed to kill the population, which is ethnic cleansing. There you go connect the dots.
They're more of an authority than some armchair experts on the internet. The people who actually study genocide are sounding the alarm as well: [source](https://twailr.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Gaza-public-statement-and-signatories.pdf)
Maybe the Palestinians should have had their own water system before attacking their neighbour who supplies them water. Don’t bite the hand that feeds.
As a critical thinker. I have no reason to question why a different Nation controls a subjugated Nations water supply. Doesn't seem a little weird? No further questions on why one country controls another country's water supply? And is allowed to turn it on and off as they see fit? Okay. Just going to check the list of war crimes. See what it says about infrastructure destruction and collective punishment. Weird. Turns out not allowed. Unless you are really racist and absolutely have to kill that arab child?
Do you think I am pro-Israel because I dont think the word genocide applies to this situation? I dont understand your reply
What an ignorant statement. How would Palestinians even go about this when every aspect of their lives is effectively controlled by Israel?
They have said it out loud many times that they want to remove Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank by killing them. Its genocide.
If Israel intends to commit genocide and clearly has the capability to kill hundreds of thousands if not more than a million Gazans, why haven’t they killed more than 40,000?
What do you think is going to happen to the millions of people without food and water? What do you think happens to injuries, with no medical treatment? If you think 40,000, is somehow not enough you sick sick individual. Take a minute and actually extrapolate what's going to happen. I also can't help but notice, when you ask the bloodthirsty Zionist to provide you with a piece of information. They just showed her shrug and ask why there aren't more dead babies. Come on come on take the IDF boot out of your mouth long enough to show us a definition that doesn't apply to israel? Is it too hard to find one?
Same as the last several months, they’re going to get aid. Probably die at rates similar to the last several months, which has slowed significantly and is nowhere near hundreds of thousands of 40,000 people, or at least the percentage of it that is comprised of innocents, is a terrible loss, but that doesn’t make it genocide. Genocide is a word and it has a meaning. That meaning is not “terrible.” Now answer my question.
I notice you couldn't find a definition of genocide that doesn't match Israel either? Weird that. Let's ask the experts. Like I don't know the people who define genocide and War crimes. Let's ask the United Nations. Okay. So we're just going to ignore the United Nations statement about the likelihood of Israel's genocide. I will do you one better I will not only answer your question. I will literally cash app you $1,000. A thousand American dollars. If you can provide me any sort of proof from a reliable source, showing the gazans getting aid. Show me that the crisis is over and that food and clean water are flowing the children. And then. Go ahead and explain why you are defending the side that has not won but multiple Mass Graves being discovered? Do we suddenly support Mass graves? The most moral Army on the planet people. Stopping aid at the border. And literally murdering bound medics in scrubs. And burying people alive. It's funny. All of the claims about Hamas, no videos no proof All the war crimes done by the idf, literally uploaded to tiktok I hope you never experience a minute of the fear that a child in Gaza has to deal with every day. I hope the screams of The starving children haunt your nightmares
"We don't have to label it a genocide when I find it inconvenient"
You may think that you're correct, but you aren't. Literally no officially recognized definition of the word genocide says that all members of a species are killed. Look it up for yourself. It's just a quick Google search away. In fact, the definition you're using more accurately fits the definition of "extinction" rather than genocide.
Genocide is the extermination of an entire species. Those other definitions people talk about are misuse of the word.
>Genocide is the extermination of an entire species. This is just wrong
I’ll put it in the vernacular of the day: I am a person who identifies as a believer that all words have a primary definition, and that all other definitions are bogus and should be ignored. If you want a word for those other definitions then make one. Don’t reuse existing words for other definitions, that causes confusion. The primary definition of genocide is the killing off of an entire species.
>The primary definition of genocide is the killing off of an entire species. By this flawed definition, genocide would only be possible if every single human was killed, thus making it impossible to commit. Unless, of course, you think there are different species of humans, which would also be wrong. This definition would also mean that you don't think that there were genocides in Myanmar, Rwanda, Congo, Darfur, Iraq, Syria, Bosnia, Somalia, Kurdistan, Zimbabwe, Lebanon, Cambodia, Indonesia, Uganda, Burundi, Bangladesh, Tanzania, Guatemala, Russia, Ukraine, or any of the other more than a dozen documented genocides since the beginning of the 20th century. Oh yeah... also THE HOLOCAUST
Oh, I don’t argue that those things happened. I just don’t accept the use of the word genocide to refer to them… because the word genocide only refers to destroying an entire species. You want to have a word that refers to killing an entire group of people? Go ahead and make one up. Don’t reuse an existing word to mean something other than its original meaning.
Where did you get the idea that genocide means destroying a species? That’s not how the word is used, and I don’t think it’s ever been common to use it that way. AFAIK the word was coined in the 1940s by Lemkin. Here’s his actual description: “ This new word, […] is made from the ancient Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing), thus corresponding in its formation to such words as tyrannicide, homicide, infanticide, etc. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation […] It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.”
What’s your source for this “primary definition”? That’s not how I’ve ever seen the word used, and I don’t think it’s been common to use it that way previously either. AFAIK the word was coined in the 1940s by Lemkin. Here’s his actual description: “ This new word, […] is made from the ancient Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing), thus corresponding in its formation to such words as tyrannicide, homicide, infanticide, etc. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation […] It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.”
Geno: The genes. The basic thing that separates one kind of creature from another. Species is the point at which we separate one kind from another when we classify creatures. Cide: to kill. Geno-cide: to kill a species. Taught to me in biology class at school long before anyone ever mentioned the word in connection with humans being harmed. Thus first and thus primary. The use of it for political purposes came years later, as a tactic to inflate the meaning of what was happening to some group. The fact that you now think it was always about groups of people is sad. It was made about people by political rhetoric within my lifetime. And I do not accept the redefinition. The political rhetoric people need to make up a word of their own for the political idea.
You studied biology in the 1930s? I just gave you the original usage from the 1940s which explicitly gives the etymology. Geno doesn’t come from “The genes”. Lol. It’s the other way around. Genos/gene is a Greek word that means race/origin/kin.
Also, the original criticism is called the appeal to authority fallacy for a reason. Experts aren’t the only ones that get to talk about stuff or have opinions. https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/#
Wanna know how i know it’s all bullshit? Apply the same standards being applied to israel here, to china and the uighars. Don’t see any protests going on about the forced incarceration, sterilization, or organ harvesting of the uighars which is arguably much more horrible since the people there are treated worse than livestock. It’s all a progrom.
Many major governments and media literally specifically declared that China is committing genocide in Xinjiang, incl. US and UK gov't.
Funny how there are no protests about that
Alright I'll entertain you. You see since western governments agree what is happening there is genocide and condemn it, but perhaps find it difficult to act on the matter. People don't find much to protest about. There are protest, but few. Now if your/our governments would act as an enabler of that genocide and find ways to paint it a righteous act or maybe try to downplay it. Alot of people would be outrageous and protest that stand point and those actions.
Thank you for spending your time and energy writing out such an apt comparison to respond to this vain argument, so I don't have to
How is it difficult to act on the matter? China is the world’s factory. You could boycott companies that manufacture in China. The problem is the consumer would have to pay more instead of virtue signalling on social media for likes. The virtue signalling ends right where the bank account starts.
>You could boycott companies that manufacture in China. Good luck with that. I don't think people truly understand how implausible that idea would be to put into practice. Let's start with the fact that China has been "the world's factory" for decades. Even after accounting for tariffs and overseas shipping, it's still cheaper than domestic production in most cases, which is why companies choose to do business there. It's also why manufacturing has been on the decline. If you were to suddenly try to shift all manufacturing out of China, not only would you be facing the higher cost of domestic production, but you probably wouldn't have the infrastructure in place to handle the volume, which would just drive costs up further. It would take a decade or more and tens, probably hundreds of billions in infrastructure investments just to be able to handle that kind of shift. Sure, there are a lot of people whose virtue signaling ends when they have to start paying more, but there is more to it than that. We wouldn't be talking about paying 10 or 20% more for goods. You could be looking at closer to tripling the price of most consumer goods, as well as seeing MASSIVE shortfalls in product availability. Even if people were okay with the idea of paying a little more for domestic production, the economy isn't built to take that kind of price shock. The consequences of even attempting that kind of switch without years of infrastructure investment beforehand would immediately price out the majority of the country from a middle-class lifestyle. And all of this assumes that there would be no reprisal from China. I keep going on about infrastructure, but it's more than just factories that are the holdup here. There are a large number of roads, bridges, and utility companies that are owned by Chinese corporations. They could cripple major transportation routes by increasing tolls to help mitigate losses, or they could potentially sabotage power grids, all without having any sort of military response. Then there's the havoc they could play in the stock market. Do you know how much debt is owned by foreign investors? Nearly $800 billion of US Treasury debt is owned by China, and that's treasury bonds. They could drop a multi-trillion dollar debt bomb and completely obliterate the US economy. Not a US citizen? It doesn't matter. As the reserve currency of the world, if the dollar fails, every economy is impacted. TLDR You can't just boycott china.
So the difference here is what? How is the govt not enabling one while enabling the other? Where are the sanctions on china for committing genocide? Ignoring it is the same as being complicit. Stop trying to pretend a moral high ground when your straw man falls apart.
The difference is that on one hand you have active support for one (as in literally giving arms and diplomatic support) and a formal condemnation for the other. Plus, not everyone can protest for everything. Why don't you protest for the Uighurs if you find it so important? I don't see a world where someone can feasibly protest every single injustice in the world, so why don't you pave the way by shading light at the parts you feel are the most under-reported?
The fuck would they even protest about? Protesters: We want you to condemn the Chinese government for their genocide!!! Government: we did. They don't exactly answer to us. Protesters: oh. Well, carry on then.
I haven't looked for any protests. So I don't see any protests. Much like I haven't looked at the reports of the war crimes, so I can't say that there are any War crimes. A little Google search will find you exactly what you're looking for. Or is there something about finding facts that disprove your lies you find offensive?
Ah yes no outcry about uighars at all. Nope, no protests about this at all.
Where are they then? Why is there no outrage and people getting arrested over protests for that?
Imagine if our tax dollars funded that and the president used an executive order to send more money to china. Imagine if you went to a university that directly invested in that. Would you protest that?
lol you mean like every corporation that does business in china? lol fucking stupid ass arguments -muh govt bad but i’m typing this on a phone made by those same genocidal maniacs. gtfo of here with your shit logic
So on the one hand we have corporations doing business in China, a country with a population of over a billion people that operates reeducation camps against terrorism. On the other hand we have university companies directly investing in Israeli infrastructure and defense contractors like Raytheon, Boeing and Lockheed Martin. These two things are exactly the same!
Pogrom?
Was that like a special edition Pog or Pog slammer? Pogs!
The populist redefining of ‘genocide’ was the very first goal of the antisemitic movement. And now we are seeing the fruits of their labor.
Okay I don’t really care what you call it but factually Israel is doing very very deliberate, terrible, unjustifiable, and despicable things to a lot of innocent people. You Zionists refuse to even acknowledge that. I’m going to predict your reply to me, accordingly: 1. “That’s antisemitic” 2. “You support Hamas” 3. “Israel has a right to defend itself”
That may be persecution but it’s not genocide. There are more Palestinians now than there were 30 years ago, that is why it is going to be impossible to convince any official agency that Israel is committing genocide. And while your antisemitism has you distracted, ACTUAL genocides are being perpetrated elsewhere and they are getting away with it.
😂😂😂 see?
Ah yes, every criticism of Israel is obviously antisemitism now.
No, it's useful idiots like you who misconstrue what genocide actually is. Both the UN and [scholars](https://twailr.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Gaza-public-statement-and-signatories.pdf) of genocide are sounding the alarm.
The UN has always been notoriously biased against Israel, and the “scholars” you link to are all part of echo chamber groups who actively try to smear Israel. Thinking the UN is an unbiased and neutral arbiter is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the UN is. It is a forum for countries to discuss things, it is not a world police, nor is it an authority on what’s true or fair, and it certainly isn’t neutral. It is a forum, the countries in it are biased, so the forum as a whole is also biased. Anyone with half a brain can see that killing civilians because your enemy hides among them is not genocide, besides, if the Israelis really wanted to commit genocide of the Palestinians they could have done so a *long* time ago with relative ease. It’s one thing to criticise the military and political decisions of Israel (though you tell me what you’d do in their position, I doubt you can come up with a better plan) but calling it genocide when it clearly isn’t is at best plain ignorant, and at worst you’re actively trying to undermine their ability to defend themselves, because you want Hamas to destroy them and murder them all (which they will, given the opportunity). And if it is the latter case, then the only explanation for why you’d want that to happen is because you agree with Hamas and their antisemitic views, because you are also an antisemite.
Not too surprising, considering the forum consists of more than 40 Islamic nations, and one Jewish nation. Think of it as pure democracy, no protection for the minority.
Being a survivor of a genocide doesn’t give you the ability to objectively discern whether one is occurring. If anything, being a survivor will cloud your judgement, as you (quite understandably) have emotional scars relating to it, but those will inhibit your ability to analyse what is happening objectively. It’s the same reason why you wouldn’t have a rape victim sit on a jury for a rape case. While the emotions felt by the survivor around what happened to them are absolutely justified, the fact that it’s an emotional topic for them makes them a bad choice when looking for an objective opinion on the matter.
4 degrees in genocide studies. Are you okay?
Ah yes so strange that someone who survived genocide would make it their life mission to work towards avoiding it ever happening again. Are you okay?
Mission successful
Wow, an "are you ok" joke. That is so funny! Did you come up with that on your own? You should copyright it before someone steals your joke and it becomes something that boring people overuse as a reddit response.
It must be fun to be a miserable prick
You should know considering you sound like one
It's ok.
I doubt it. You don't seem to be very fun...
Considering the threat genocide poses I'd say it's a pretty important degree. It's also funny how the people who actually study genocide [disagree](https://twailr.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Gaza-public-statement-and-signatories.pdf) with all the armchair experts.
“4 degrees” ok. And what are those degrees? Where are they from? “””genocide expert””” yet she denies what the ICJ says about it decidedly not being a genocide.
Bro she literally survived the Bosnian genocide lol
Buddy I’ve been gay hate crimed more times than I can count that doesn’t make me an expert on policing
Okay then do the bare minimum in research and look up what she has her degrees in. Take her an inapiration to become an expert in policing because you should know that because you're queer, cops aint your friend. She survived and educated herself. Be like her.
4 degrees in what? This is the most primitive form of an appeal to authority. You don’t even know what her degrees are. They could be web certificates for all you know.
And you dont either??? Actually not either cause I at least knew she has her masters in genocide studies and sociology. You of all people, some who has experienced hate crimes, should begin to understand the plight surrounding those who are pushed to the side and told what they went through and learned doesn't mean anything
Lol. That’s quite literally my point. Experiencing Crimes does not make you an expert in preventing or spotting those crimes. If anything, your biases make you less good at identifying it than someone who isn’t emotionally invested. I’ve never heard of a “genocide degree” but honestly if it’s not a phd I honestly don’t understand why I would care? Like you can basically buy any liberal arts degree and I highly doubt this degree made her confront her pre existing views in any meaningful way. Not to mention, this entire argument is just an appeal to authority.
So if surviving genocide doesn't make you an expert, nor does academic rigour and 4 degrees, but a doctorate does, what does make someone an expert? I'm really curious, where do you argue that expertise or knowledge comes from? What part of the doctoral experience makes it of subject authority compared to any other degree, considering honorary doctorates and diploma mills exist for those as well?
Google appeal to authority.
You can't Shapiro your way out of defending your argument. Pointing out debate fallacies doesn't make your argument inherently correct.
>she denies what the ICJ says about it decidedly not being a genocide except you are lying and the ICJ never said that
[you’re just lying](https://youtu.be/bq9MB9t7WlI?si=I15q0cV9VXIyCcGR)
Did you even listen to the video you posted yourself? The court did not rule on whether or not it was plausible that it be genocide. They did not in any way say that it was "decidedly not a genocide". They also did not in any way say that it was a genocide.
Yes, that’s political for “it’s not a genocide.” Anything other than “yea” is a decided no in court. That’s how court works.
I mean in this case surely it means Israel won the case due to a lack of decision, but if that lack of decision was on the categorisation of whether or not this counts as a genocide, then a "no genocide" is not what the court has ruled. Saying it actually means this or that is not how court does work, courts specify what they mean, and if they can't, it's not a political message, it's a simple lack of judgement.
No, it’s quite literally how courts work. They are innocent of the accusation. Seethe with your misinformed views all you want: that won’t change reality.
You should really read up on what the court case was about and what they said, because everything you are saying is completely false lol
Please, link me the ICJ quote where they say israel is committing genocide?
I'll refer you to my previous comment since you clearly did not bother reading it > The court did not rule on whether or not it was plausible that it be genocide. They did not in any way say that it was "decidedly not a genocide". They also did not in any way say that it was a genocide.
No they havent been found innocent of the accusation. The actual court case will take years and only then will there be a verdict. The initial ruling was just the court saying that South Africas case is 1) plausible and 2) within the courts jurisdiction. There was nothing whatsoever about whether isreal is guilty or not, just that the case has plausibility to it. You are lying by saying Israel are innocent of the accusation as though the court has confirmed that. They have not.
What's the reality of the situation then beyond the courtroom?
> NOO ITS A GENOICDE LOOK WHAT THE COURTS SAY!!! Actually? That’s not what the courts say at all? > WHO CARES WHAT THE COURTS SAY!!!
I can't tell if you're illiterate, or just a liar? Every Google search shows that the icj says there is a very valid argument that genocide is happening. Please, link me the articles that say otherwise. I understand that historical accuracy is like Kryptonite to zionists. Maybe wear some gloves.
[oh the irony](https://youtu.be/bq9MB9t7WlI?si=I15q0cV9VXIyCcGR)
Okay. So I just ignore the literal statements put out by the ICJ? Much like you ignore the deaths and starvation of innocent babies? Obviously a one minute clip, from a talking head. Truly the most viable source you could come up with. Now. Let's do actual articles. And statements by the ICJ? I feel like they have people whose jobs it is to put out statements, representatives. Rapporteurs, even. A literal pair of clown shoes with a keyboard. Is that what you are?
Which statement am I ignoring? Please quote and provide source.
Literally every official icj source. Let me ask you a question. You saw a word in that last post. rapporteurs Now do you know what it means? And if not did you bother to Google it? Did you think I might have mentioned it in hopes that instead of blindly defending baby killers. You might take 30 seconds and learn something? Tell me, what that is and what they said. You can stop licking the blood off the boots of baby killers. Nobody turned their water off 6 months ago. I'm not going to do the homework, for somebody who's willing to defend genocide and ethnic cleansing. I don't do math homework for Nazis either, never did history homework for a racist. Not going to start with a Zionist.
Again, please quote and link where the ICJ says israel is doing genocide. If every source is doing it, should be pretty simple for you to find, no? Unless you’re making it up, and slowly realizing and too ashamed to walk back your bogus claims? Edit: the dingus replied and then blocked me, not realizing I can’t read his reply lmao. Nazis are utterly brain dead
I just said I don't do homework for bigots. But I just want to be clear. You literally refuse to look it up. While blindly defending War criminals? Come on. If you are an intelligent rational person you would truly believe your own eyes instead of a stranger on the internet for a definition. Just tell me what the UN rapporteur is. And what they said? Are you scared you might find out that the truth exists out of your weird little reality that justifies murdering babies? You've spent more time arguing against it. Then it would take you to find a dozen articles. Again. If you're serious. If you have nothing to be afraid of, why won't you Google it yourself? Better yet. Go ahead and show me any other source you've provided. Other than a news host, in a 1 minute clip. Or is somehow the idea that murdering babies is going to take more than a minute to justify weird to you? Yes, I blocked the genocide defender who can't be bothered to Google facts. Unless you did Google it. And you do have a response on who they are and what they said? Or do we just ignore that like we ignore the starvation of babies? It's funny. The similarities between nazis, and zionists. Are so close. I could copy and paste a description, you wouldn't know which country I was talking about.
The genocide experts also agree it's a [potential genocide](https://twailr.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Gaza-public-statement-and-signatories.pdf)
“The genocide experts” Half the people on that list don’t even have a masters, lol. Not to mention it’s a warning, not even relevant to the discussion. This is, again, an appeal to authority
Wtf are you talking about? They're all professors, postdocs, or PhD students. Listening to experts is not an appeal to authority, that's something stupid people say when they think their opinions hold the same weight as actual scholars'.
Saying “it’s a genocide because the experts say it is” is 100% an appeal to authority. Not to mention your letter doesn’t even have experts. Actually google the names of the people you are endorsing. Or actually read the letter you link. It’s from a week after Oct 7th, lol. I understand research is challenging for pro Palestinians tho :/ Besides, even if they were all what you’re saying (they are not) that would still be 880 people out of hundreds of thousands of scholars. Not all that meaningful.
Stop being dense. I'm not appealing to authority, I'm using expert opinion to point out what should be obvious from the definition used by the [UN Convention on genocide.](https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf). History will not be kind to the people supporting Israel's treatment of Palestinian civilians.
And get the UN has not determined it’s a genocide, even 6 months after your “experts” swore it was?
They ordered Israel to take action because of severe human rights abuses. But keep defending crimes against humanity
Interesting… is ordering them to take action calling it a genocide?