B-but it's a genocide against the freedom to live in poverty, which directly affects the pockets of our rich masters!!11
I have a feeling that they’re only publishing this now that it’s convenient for them, but honestly, aside from the neoliberal viewpoint, it was not one of the worst articles that I’ve ever read. I have talked before about this word and I rarely use it precisely because it can be so ambiguous. There isn’t even a scholarly consensus on it.
Scott Straus has counted 21 different definitions of genocide. Genocide has been a legal, political, moral, and empirical concept that means different things to different people.^10^ There are several scholars, including Helen Fein, Leo Kuper, Herbert Hirsch, and Kurt Jonassohn, who question the very rationale for the debate on definition. In view of the ‘bewildering array of definitions’, as Kuper put it, the UN Genocide Convention is indeed the only reasonable option.^11^
Usually, the dissenters express their disagreement by refusing to participate in the argument. Nobody has dared to put it plainly: the debate on definition of genocide is futile! Scholars may continue arguing about the term ‘genocide’ for decades, without reaching any conclusions, or even a working definition more functional than that agreed upon in 1948. It is practically impossible, considering all the different professional backgrounds of the participants in the discourse (put it to vote?).
Some commentators have objected to the UN Genocide Convention as a political compromise between major international players. However, international law is made up of political agreements. Were the discussion on the definition of genocide to be reopened today at the UN — which is rather unlikely — politics would come to dominate the debate much the same as they did 60 years earlier.
(Emphasis added. Source.)
I certainly don’t blame the OP for assuming ill faith: this is the Wall Street Journal, after all, and the timing is a reasonable cause for suspicion. That being said, I would still prefer that we use other terms for this type of atrocity. What the neocolonists are attempting is extermination.
While it's true that genocide is a somewhat ambiguous term, it's widely used and most people understand the intended meaning behind it. I do think that calls to avoid using the term from western media are in fact malicious. These calls come from the same publications that had no problems using the term in the context of Ukraine, and they're certainly not going to switch to using a more descriptive term like extermination.
They want people to stop using it for actual genocides so they can call every action of the enemies of the west a "genocide" their calls to "stop using it" are calls to allow them to redefine the word to just mean "everything our enemies do"
Scott Straus has counted 21 different definitions of genocide.
Does that include "genocide is when jobs program"?
If the people being genocided are really dark in skin tone we can say that it is a casual genocide. It is nothing to ruffle the feathers for white people to scream online about so it's not really political. /s
It's only Genocide if it comes from the Russian oblast of Gen'o'cide, otherwise it's just sparkling mass murder
I have seen a few cases of people arguing that Gaza isn't a genocide because look at REAL genocides like in Xinjiang.
I have no idea how somebody can be so intellectually dishonest to themselves that they think the murder of innocent civilians documents in thousands of photographs and videos is less legitimate than the supposed "genocide" in Xinjiang without a single piece of evidence.
Idk bro, CNN AND MSNBC BOTH say that Israel needs to defend itself by killingeliminating childrenHamas-like Human Shields /s
Adrien Zenz's Ouija board is all the evidence I need. He says he's personally spoken to at least 1 billion uyghur ghosts
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Ah, yes, the good old erase the bad word that perfectly describes what we are doing trick.
How about we stop supporting genocide and don't do genocide in the future.
You're only allowed to say it after it happens. Otherwise you'll hurt the politicians feelings if you imply that they're committing genocide before it happens.
They killed me too when it was inconvenient to them now they want to kill the concept of genocide? What low will they stoop to next?
We should change it to something like "murder of babies that you are personally responsible for as long as you stay silent"
