So genocide? You want to start a genocide? I mean at this point you could just say that and still remain President. I’m sure Mike Johnson already has an excuse locked and loaded.
I feel like there needs to be a word for intentionally killing mass numbers of civilians that captures the gravity of the crime, without resorting to using the word genocide. Genocide should be reserved for actual attempts to remove certain genetic lines from the gene pool, which includes going after the diaspora, the way the Nazis did with Jews in WW2.
If someone rounded you, your family and all your extended family up and put you in captivity. Sterilized you but otherwise took care of everyone feeding and even providing them medical access when needed. Even without murdering a single person that’s genocide.
Cultural genocide which is just as serious. Is something that the Chinese government is heavily invested in with their one China policy. Purposely targeting any group with the goal of its elimination whether it’s the Jews the Muslims the First Nations peoples, the blacks the Indians, Israel’s genocide of Palestinians that has been going for more than a half a century. It doesn’t matter how large the group is if you target them or their cultures with the intent of eliminating them that is genocide. Murder is not required.
Exactly. The word is getting used interchangeably with mass murder now, which isn’t correct. I think the reason for this is that the word genocide has a nastier connotation than any of the alternatives, and people want to use the most viscerally impactful word they can to attack the mass murderers.
There is unfortunately a lot of overlap. When it comes to genocide, groups tend to be rather large. Even a bit of a mass. And most don’t have the time, patience or resources to terminate them without murder. So it is understandable.
When it comes to Trump and American conservatives. They are genocidal. If you’re a Democrat they want to target and eliminate you. Even if they don’t murder you. Gay? They want you gone. Trans? Ditto. Black? Ahyup. Muslim? You betcha. Jew that isn’t financing or enabling them? Get to safety.
What trump is doing in Iran might technically not be genocide, yet. But we do have some good words for it. War crimes.
What you mention with the way the Trump administration treats minorities, attempting to shunt them out of society without directly killing them for the most part, is another category that maybe needs a more appropriately visceral word so as not to be lumped in with the more literal genocide described in your previous comment.
Just because something isn’t genocide doesn’t mean it isn’t a horrible crime. It doesn’t even mean it’s not as bad as genocide. But we don’t have other words that sound as bad, so we use the wrong word and muddy the issues.
Shunting or excluding is a fairly sanitizing term. If you want to exclude/eliminate people from a society they depend on to survive. Simply based on who they are. Even if you ignorantly never think about that or the logistics of it. Just wanting them gone. It’s effectively genocide all the same.
Bigotry is having prejudiced thoughts against a group as an individual. Genocide is when you act on those thoughts as a society.
I disagree with this. Redefining genocide as “acting on bigoted thoughts as a society” is a redefinition of the word. It’s also very broad, to the point of almost meaninglessness.
Obviously, words only mean anything to the extent that use them, so genocide may come to mean exactly what you describe. But when that comes to pass, the word genocide will necessarily have lost its bite, which will ironically defeat the purpose of its redefinition.
It’s broad. But not to the point of meaninglessness. To the point of inclusiveness. And that’s meaningful.
I’m definitely coming at this from a more Anarchist/libertarian mindset so others not quite understanding is completely understandable. But ask yourself this. How did all the things we commonly accept as genocides, Nazi Germany’s treatment of the Jews, Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. How did it start?
What made them genocides. Was it the speed, was it the brutality? Or was it simply that these groups were targeted to be excluded and eliminated from society? How slowly must one strangle a culture or group for it to be acceptable? Germany did theirs in only a few years. Israel has been at theirs for decades. So does that make Israel’s acceptable? Because they’re going slower with it overall. Granted they’ve greatly increased their Pace in the last couple years. But the genocide didn’t even start in this last decade. It was always a genocide.
So genocide? You want to start a genocide? I mean at this point you could just say that and still remain President. I’m sure Mike Johnson already has an excuse locked and loaded.
We’ve been sponsoring or engaged in genocide in the Middle East since the Nakba of '48. Trump’s just doing it badly.
I feel like there needs to be a word for intentionally killing mass numbers of civilians that captures the gravity of the crime, without resorting to using the word genocide. Genocide should be reserved for actual attempts to remove certain genetic lines from the gene pool, which includes going after the diaspora, the way the Nazis did with Jews in WW2.
If someone rounded you, your family and all your extended family up and put you in captivity. Sterilized you but otherwise took care of everyone feeding and even providing them medical access when needed. Even without murdering a single person that’s genocide.
Cultural genocide which is just as serious. Is something that the Chinese government is heavily invested in with their one China policy. Purposely targeting any group with the goal of its elimination whether it’s the Jews the Muslims the First Nations peoples, the blacks the Indians, Israel’s genocide of Palestinians that has been going for more than a half a century. It doesn’t matter how large the group is if you target them or their cultures with the intent of eliminating them that is genocide. Murder is not required.
Exactly. The word is getting used interchangeably with mass murder now, which isn’t correct. I think the reason for this is that the word genocide has a nastier connotation than any of the alternatives, and people want to use the most viscerally impactful word they can to attack the mass murderers.
There is unfortunately a lot of overlap. When it comes to genocide, groups tend to be rather large. Even a bit of a mass. And most don’t have the time, patience or resources to terminate them without murder. So it is understandable.
When it comes to Trump and American conservatives. They are genocidal. If you’re a Democrat they want to target and eliminate you. Even if they don’t murder you. Gay? They want you gone. Trans? Ditto. Black? Ahyup. Muslim? You betcha. Jew that isn’t financing or enabling them? Get to safety.
What trump is doing in Iran might technically not be genocide, yet. But we do have some good words for it. War crimes.
What you mention with the way the Trump administration treats minorities, attempting to shunt them out of society without directly killing them for the most part, is another category that maybe needs a more appropriately visceral word so as not to be lumped in with the more literal genocide described in your previous comment.
Just because something isn’t genocide doesn’t mean it isn’t a horrible crime. It doesn’t even mean it’s not as bad as genocide. But we don’t have other words that sound as bad, so we use the wrong word and muddy the issues.
Shunting or excluding is a fairly sanitizing term. If you want to exclude/eliminate people from a society they depend on to survive. Simply based on who they are. Even if you ignorantly never think about that or the logistics of it. Just wanting them gone. It’s effectively genocide all the same.
Bigotry is having prejudiced thoughts against a group as an individual. Genocide is when you act on those thoughts as a society.
I disagree with this. Redefining genocide as “acting on bigoted thoughts as a society” is a redefinition of the word. It’s also very broad, to the point of almost meaninglessness.
Obviously, words only mean anything to the extent that use them, so genocide may come to mean exactly what you describe. But when that comes to pass, the word genocide will necessarily have lost its bite, which will ironically defeat the purpose of its redefinition.
It’s broad. But not to the point of meaninglessness. To the point of inclusiveness. And that’s meaningful.
I’m definitely coming at this from a more Anarchist/libertarian mindset so others not quite understanding is completely understandable. But ask yourself this. How did all the things we commonly accept as genocides, Nazi Germany’s treatment of the Jews, Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. How did it start?
What made them genocides. Was it the speed, was it the brutality? Or was it simply that these groups were targeted to be excluded and eliminated from society? How slowly must one strangle a culture or group for it to be acceptable? Germany did theirs in only a few years. Israel has been at theirs for decades. So does that make Israel’s acceptable? Because they’re going slower with it overall. Granted they’ve greatly increased their Pace in the last couple years. But the genocide didn’t even start in this last decade. It was always a genocide.