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
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
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.