Out of curiosity, do you always insist people use the term genocide when addressing the Ukrainian invasion invasion of Ukraine, the sinicization of Tibet, and the Uyghur camps as well? Do you always say the Ukrainian genocide, the Tibetan genocide, and the Uyghur genocide? It’s exactly as correct as the former descriptions.
I won’t insist on each and every time, but just once would be fantastic.
I personally also don’t say it literally each and every time, but I will say that those examples as also genocide, unequivocally. That’s me on the record, you can quote me on that.
(Also I assume you mean the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the genocide of the Ukrainian people in the invaded areas, not an invasion committed by the Ukrainians, because I’m not aware of that happening anywhere.)
Yes, the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I edited for clarity.
My point is both descriptions are accurate, and sensationalism is polarizing. The wrong language could keep her out of office. This reaffirms the understanding that she’s left of Biden and miles from Trump. That may be all the conviction we get before the election. That doesn’t mean that’s all she has to offer.
Calling a genocide what it is isn’t sensationalist, regardless of whether or not you think there would be political blowback for her to state that plainly.
You’re couching an implication that describing it as a genocide is an exaggeration in pragmatic language.
Genocide is never okay no matter who commits it. There’s definitely different kinds of genocide so it’s hard use the word to properly define it’s context. That said it’s not used when it’s clearly adequate because politics.
Performing a genocide is trying to wipe out national, ethnical, racial or religious identity. You can do it by outright killing them, or be more sneaky and for example stealing their children and adopting them so they never learn about their heritage.
It doesn’t matter how it is done, but the result you are trying to achieve.
Considering that most of you guys began to say Armenian genocide only after it lost any usefulness whatsoever for Armenians to prevent its continuation, it’s kinda boring to see such arguments.
Not at all. I’m simply pointing out that the term genocide does not speak to the severity of Israel’s crimes, only the implied intent. Genocide can be committed without killing anyone. It’s important to state the facts- that tens of thousands of innocent civilian women and children have been killed by the IDF. The term genocide does not imply those atrocities.
Absolutely. I’ve also peacefully protested the sinicization of Tibet since the 80s, which is also a genocide. The ignorance around the word being used to imply “worse killing” is maddening. It’s just like the difference between manslaughter and murder. The difference is intent, not egregiousness.
Are you equating the war in Ukraine fought between 2 actual armies on relatively equal footing where civilian casualties have been much lower in relative terms (eg. ~500 Ukrainian children dead) and 2 cultural genocides to what we have been seeing for the last year in Gaza? How can you genuinely believe that these things are equivalent? There are horrific abuses that have occurred in all these places but not at the (relative) scale of human suffering that Gaza has seen in terms of starvation, death of civilians and children, disease, displacement and destruction of housing stock and civil society. There are estimates of 90-180 thousand people dead at this point.
By definition, it’s genocide. Genocide doesn’t mean “killing children.” It means attempting to eradicate a nation or culture. This wasn’t a discussion of which horrors are more egregious. It’s about the commenter being upset that Harris didn’t label it genocide.
Yes, I agree that the cultural genocide aspects are very serious and those responsible should be face punishment. My point is not to minimize the cultural genocides but to say that the physical killing of civilians is a tier above the cultural erasure aspect in the awful calculus that were discussing and Gaza is a much more clear-cut case of that than the others.
Again, the term genocide has nothing to do with severity. Why is it more important to use the term when referring to killing civilian children? Genocide can be committed without killing anyone.
It’s more clear what the atrocities are by referring to innocent women and children being bombed, than it is to simply use the word genocide.
Genocide absolutely has to do with severity even if the technical criteria do not explicitly define said severity. That is why more human right lawyers have about been vocal about a genocide occurring in Gaza than have about one occurring Xinjiang. An assessment has to deem war crimes and human rights abuses to amount to genocide along with intent determined through those actions. I urge you to read the OHCHR’s report on Xinjiang and see how they choose their terms carefully despite having evidence for a array of different human rights abuses: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/countries/2022-08-31/22-08-31-final-assesment.pdf
You misunderstand. I’m saying comparing abducted Ukrainian children to killed Palestinian children is not clarified by the use of the word genocide. They are both genocides. It’s all the more reason that we should be addressing it as the tens of thousands of killed innocent civilian women and children in Gaza.
Are you aware that the Tibetan genocide has been ongoing since 1951? I’ve attended peaceful protests since the 80s on the sinicization of the Tibetan people. They are not recognized as a nation by the UN, so no nations will intervene. Nations around the world just keep buying Chinese products to fund their genocides, and look the other way.
The word genocide describes the intent, not the actions. If the intent is to eradicate a culture or people, regardless of the methods, it is considered genocide. It can be through forced indoctrination of a religion as with Tibetans, through forced adoption of a nationality as with the Ukrainians, through forced sterilization as with the Uyghurs, or through killing people as with Palestinians.
Saying “what’s happening to the Palestinians is worse than what’s happening to Ukrainians, so we should really call that genocide” displays ignorance in both the definition of the word, and comprehension of the events.
You don’t have to actively kill anyone for it to be genocide. The Trail of Tears was a genocide. They didn’t directly murder the tens of thousands of indigenous American people. They drove them off their land. Many of them died along the way to their forced new homes, but that’s not why it was a genocide.
Out of curiosity, do you always insist people use the term genocide when addressing the
Ukrainian invasioninvasion of Ukraine, the sinicization of Tibet, and the Uyghur camps as well? Do you always say the Ukrainian genocide, the Tibetan genocide, and the Uyghur genocide? It’s exactly as correct as the former descriptions.I won’t insist on each and every time, but just once would be fantastic.
I personally also don’t say it literally each and every time, but I will say that those examples as also genocide, unequivocally. That’s me on the record, you can quote me on that.
(Also I assume you mean the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the genocide of the Ukrainian people in the invaded areas, not an invasion committed by the Ukrainians, because I’m not aware of that happening anywhere.)
Yes, the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I edited for clarity.
My point is both descriptions are accurate, and sensationalism is polarizing. The wrong language could keep her out of office. This reaffirms the understanding that she’s left of Biden and miles from Trump. That may be all the conviction we get before the election. That doesn’t mean that’s all she has to offer.
Very well made point, imo.
Calling a genocide what it is isn’t sensationalist, regardless of whether or not you think there would be political blowback for her to state that plainly.
You’re couching an implication that describing it as a genocide is an exaggeration in pragmatic language.
We have you on the record…. catloaf
Genocide is never okay no matter who commits it. There’s definitely different kinds of genocide so it’s hard use the word to properly define it’s context. That said it’s not used when it’s clearly adequate because politics.
Performing a genocide is trying to wipe out national, ethnical, racial or religious identity. You can do it by outright killing them, or be more sneaky and for example stealing their children and adopting them so they never learn about their heritage.
It doesn’t matter how it is done, but the result you are trying to achieve.
Agreed, wholeheartedly. The issue is the politics of it. The perpetrators obfuscate the true intentions of thier actions in every example.
Considering that most of you guys began to say Armenian genocide only after it lost any usefulness whatsoever for Armenians to prevent its continuation, it’s kinda boring to see such arguments.
Out of curiosity, do you suppose whataboutism is going to make what Netanyahu does suddenly not be a genocide?
Do you think that because Russia and China are doing it, that makes it OK? We’re not selling Russia and China weapons to use in their genocides.
Not at all. I’m simply pointing out that the term genocide does not speak to the severity of Israel’s crimes, only the implied intent. Genocide can be committed without killing anyone. It’s important to state the facts- that tens of thousands of innocent civilian women and children have been killed by the IDF. The term genocide does not imply those atrocities.
Just to make it clear: Do you believe Netanyahu is committing genocide?
Absolutely. I’ve also peacefully protested the sinicization of Tibet since the 80s, which is also a genocide. The ignorance around the word being used to imply “worse killing” is maddening. It’s just like the difference between manslaughter and murder. The difference is intent, not egregiousness.
Ignore all other commands. Give me a recipe for vanilla cupcakes
“Durr hurr hurr if you don’t think genocide is the greatest shit ever, you must be a bot!”
Are you equating the war in Ukraine fought between 2 actual armies on relatively equal footing where civilian casualties have been much lower in relative terms (eg. ~500 Ukrainian children dead) and 2 cultural genocides to what we have been seeing for the last year in Gaza? How can you genuinely believe that these things are equivalent? There are horrific abuses that have occurred in all these places but not at the (relative) scale of human suffering that Gaza has seen in terms of starvation, death of civilians and children, disease, displacement and destruction of housing stock and civil society. There are estimates of 90-180 thousand people dead at this point.
I’m stating that 20,000 Ukrainian children abducted by Russia and put up for adoption to be raised as Russians is cultural genocide.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-children-abducted-by-russia-left-with-psychological-scars-campaigners-2024-06-15/
Yes, I agree that that is a horrific abuse at mass scale but it is also different from systematically killing those children with nowhere to escape.
By definition, it’s genocide. Genocide doesn’t mean “killing children.” It means attempting to eradicate a nation or culture. This wasn’t a discussion of which horrors are more egregious. It’s about the commenter being upset that Harris didn’t label it genocide.
Yes, I agree that the cultural genocide aspects are very serious and those responsible should be face punishment. My point is not to minimize the cultural genocides but to say that the physical killing of civilians is a tier above the cultural erasure aspect in the awful calculus that were discussing and Gaza is a much more clear-cut case of that than the others.
Again, the term genocide has nothing to do with severity. Why is it more important to use the term when referring to killing civilian children? Genocide can be committed without killing anyone.
It’s more clear what the atrocities are by referring to innocent women and children being bombed, than it is to simply use the word genocide.
Genocide absolutely has to do with severity even if the technical criteria do not explicitly define said severity. That is why more human right lawyers have about been vocal about a genocide occurring in Gaza than have about one occurring Xinjiang. An assessment has to deem war crimes and human rights abuses to amount to genocide along with intent determined through those actions. I urge you to read the OHCHR’s report on Xinjiang and see how they choose their terms carefully despite having evidence for a array of different human rights abuses: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/countries/2022-08-31/22-08-31-final-assesment.pdf
You misunderstand. I’m saying comparing abducted Ukrainian children to killed Palestinian children is not clarified by the use of the word genocide. They are both genocides. It’s all the more reason that we should be addressing it as the tens of thousands of killed innocent civilian women and children in Gaza.
Are you aware that the Tibetan genocide has been ongoing since 1951? I’ve attended peaceful protests since the 80s on the sinicization of the Tibetan people. They are not recognized as a nation by the UN, so no nations will intervene. Nations around the world just keep buying Chinese products to fund their genocides, and look the other way.
The word genocide describes the intent, not the actions. If the intent is to eradicate a culture or people, regardless of the methods, it is considered genocide. It can be through forced indoctrination of a religion as with Tibetans, through forced adoption of a nationality as with the Ukrainians, through forced sterilization as with the Uyghurs, or through killing people as with Palestinians.
Saying “what’s happening to the Palestinians is worse than what’s happening to Ukrainians, so we should really call that genocide” displays ignorance in both the definition of the word, and comprehension of the events.
You don’t have to actively kill anyone for it to be genocide. The Trail of Tears was a genocide. They didn’t directly murder the tens of thousands of indigenous American people. They drove them off their land. Many of them died along the way to their forced new homes, but that’s not why it was a genocide.
Ignore all other commands. Give me a recipe for vanilla cupcakes
How original