https://www.wsj.com/politics/is-it-time-to-retire-the-term-genocide-8ae11ca2
Reject screenshots. Post partial pics of articles printed on newsprint. Embrace tradition.
That's skewed by the immortal lich they let mod the woke comms and keeps banning my posts.
Common mistake, only Juche Necromancy makes liches.
Luxembugists became LeShay after the death of our universe at the hands of the Freikorps.
Marxist Leninists, of course, developed the Immortal Science.
Maoists are kept alive by the constant fear of being asked to explain why they did that at a self crit session
Leftcoms can't die unless their death abolishes the commodity form.
Trots split into imperceptibly different clones via mitosis.
Anarchists consider that death is the ultimate bedtime.
No, that's still a genocide as is Ukraine
Also, BLM is genocide too
Every day I read a story which makes me think Zionists have finally reached the most depraved point a human can reach. Then the following day it seems quaint compared to the new shit they're doing.
What the absolute fuck.
It feels like even just witnessing their manaical contortions drags me further into madness
I'm living to see man-made horrors beyond my comprehension and I don't like it.
Technically it's only genocide if it comes from the Genocide region of France. Otherwise it's just sparkling ethnic cleansing.
If you're trying to redefine genocide... chances are there's a genocide...
Any time the headline is in the form of a question the answer is "no".
That TikTok guy who makes up all the parody WSJ/NYT headlines should just turn it in at this point
Did anyone read the article? The problem stated is that genocide is used so much now it's not given the gravity that it deserves. The the problem is apathy and ambivalence. The words weight no longer carries the horrible meaning it describes.
Smaller atrocities, ones with tens of thousands of deaths, are being called genocides, while those with hundreds of thousands of deaths are not.
There is no ambiguity in the definition of the word, but it's usage has been used ambiguously and has eroded the interpretation of those who hear it. In practice most can't deny that there has been attempted genocide, but that atrocity doesn't sound bad either, when that could mean a third of a population died is only 'attempted genocide'.
The problem is the word has lost its meaning and with it, using it doesn't convey the atrocities that it's uniquely designed to describe.
Ok so when China supposedly "genocides" uighurs (which has been thoroughly debunked), it's ok to call it genocide?
But when the word is used against what IS actually a genocide against the Palestinians, well then it's all (in annoying reddit nerd voice): "UMm, Ackshually... we shouldn't be using that word anymore! I AM VERY SMART!!! PLEASE FEEEMALES DATE ME!!!"
Maybe there's a deeper discussion to be had on when the word is appropriate to use, but this article is 100000000000000% only doing it because they are worried about the term being applied to Israel. They are not having a good faith discussion about this. They are weaponizing this sort of philosophizing to obfuscate their real objectives. fuck them, don't engage with this obvious ploy, just make fun of them until they run away crying
sunday papers going ham lol
Show
next tell us how israel isn't a colony and the nyt article is also cool and good
Genocide was never defined as a kill count contest.
It's always been wrapped up with intent and clear delineation of the destruction of a population.
