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.
I don’t disagree that bigotry and marginalization can and do lead to genocide. But they are not themselves genocide. It’s just a semantic thing, not a way to excuse bigotry. To the extent that this argument appears to excuse bigotry, it just underscores my point that the broadening of the definition of genocide stems from a desire to find appropriately strident language to describe bigotry and murder that is not genocide by the original definition.
Genocides that don’t include an attempt to exterminate a genetic line are not genocide. They’re something else; maybe something just as bad, maybe something worse, but something else.
I’d say we agree more than we disagree. But that we should probably agree to disagree on this point. The legal definition, which is what people are largely going to go by. Only lists specific categories. Fair enough. I’m going to stick by the categories not being absolute. That the targeting of people just for who they are, for persecution and elimination is the important part. Whether or not they’re in one of the predefined categories, doesn’t change that for me. And that does not dilute downplay or minimize what genocide is. Because genocide isn’t the categories listed there, it’s the actions that have historically taken against those categories in the past.
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.
I don’t disagree that bigotry and marginalization can and do lead to genocide. But they are not themselves genocide. It’s just a semantic thing, not a way to excuse bigotry. To the extent that this argument appears to excuse bigotry, it just underscores my point that the broadening of the definition of genocide stems from a desire to find appropriately strident language to describe bigotry and murder that is not genocide by the original definition.
Genocides that don’t include an attempt to exterminate a genetic line are not genocide. They’re something else; maybe something just as bad, maybe something worse, but something else.
I’d say we agree more than we disagree. But that we should probably agree to disagree on this point. The legal definition, which is what people are largely going to go by. Only lists specific categories. Fair enough. I’m going to stick by the categories not being absolute. That the targeting of people just for who they are, for persecution and elimination is the important part. Whether or not they’re in one of the predefined categories, doesn’t change that for me. And that does not dilute downplay or minimize what genocide is. Because genocide isn’t the categories listed there, it’s the actions that have historically taken against those categories in the past.