The point is that accusations of genocide are frequently bullshit, and when the topic is treated as sacrosanct it allows people to abuse it by attaching their bullshit lies and propaganda to the word. Most people on this website have been or would be accused of genocide denial for our stances on the "Uighur genocide," and pearl clutching facilitates people not looking at the evidence critically. If you want to engage in every accusation seriously and in good faith, no matter how unreasonable it is, then you do you, but responding with over-the-top sarcastic/ironic acceptance of accusations is a common tactic around here. It's why we have a clock telling us what time it is in Moscow, for instance.
Couldn't you say the same thing about the mass rape accusations under the USSR? I genuinely don't see how your line of reasoning excuses genocide jokes but not rape jokes, which we all agree are horrible and tasteless.
I think you might be onto something there. False SA allegations are almost exclusively a thing made up by men to downplay the severity of SA accusations. The thing that makes that diffrent is that SA is not taken seriously enough by society. So the two situations are not really analogous I think.
And I don't see how your line of reasoning wouldn't rule out 9/11 jokes. But that's if we're operating purely on abstract principles rather than looking at what's actually happening on a case-by-case basis.
There are opportunists who use accusations of SA for their own purposes, like you mentioned, accusations towards the USSR, or more recently, the NYT fake story on the subject on behalf of Zionism. But the far greater problem is the opposite - credible accusations being discounted or not taken seriously. This is something that happens on a vast scale, and underreporting is a much bigger issue than over-reporting. If people took SA more seriously, then maybe we would be a little more susceptible to propaganda involving it, but it's worth paying that price of it means addressing the far larger problem.
And let's look at the example of 9/11, in the other direction. There are plenty of innocent people who died or were injured or traumatized by the event. Those people could be online and could see us joking about it. You could argue that there are problems that stem from not taking 9/11 seriously enough, like that, or the whole thing Jon Stewart was on about with them being denied benefits. However, way more harm has been caused by 9/11 being taken too seriously. The much bigger issue are the hundreds of thousands of people who were killed in imperialist wars that used 9/11 as justification. On the whole, it's pretty clear that it's better for people to take 9/11 less seriously as opposed to more seriously
When it comes to genocide, we can see just how credulous people are about it, to the point that one guy can just make up a bunch of shit and questioning any of it can get a lot of flak in a lot of places. "Genocide denial" doesn't just refer to denying well-documented and conclusively proven genocides, like the Holocaust, but rather many people will apply it to any claim of genocide. Allegations of genocide are upheld as sacrosanct no matter how shaky the evidence is, and this allows those allegations to be thrown around willy-nilly. And you can be sure that they will be primarily directed at AES states and other enemies of the West.
And you might say that people aren't taking (true) claims about the genocide happening to the Palestinians seriously enough, and you would be right. But we're talking upholding claims of genocide in general as being above being joked about, and there's plenty of Zionists who would accuse Hamas of being genocidal. I'll grant there is room for debate, but from my perspective it seems like genocide language is much more extensively weaponized by the people who are actually doing it, and if you're a principled leftist, it's just a fact of life that you're going to have to get used to being called a genocide denier and become somewhat desensitized to such language.
However, way more harm has been caused by 9/11 being taken too seriously. The much bigger issue are the hundreds of thousands of people who were killed in imperialist wars that used 9/11 as justification.
I think you're saying this, but this is why 9/11 jokes are OK: the response has been so horrifically disproportionate that holding those 3000ish casualties above the millions killed in the last 20 years is preposterous. And that was before covid, where we were doing 9/11 numbers every day for a while and now we barely acknowledge that happened.
Allegations of genocide are upheld as sacrosanct no matter how shaky the evidence is
Jokes about the flimsiness of evidence (e.g., about how the Black Book of Communism counts Nazis as victims) of a non-existent genocide are pretty different from joking about doing genocide.
Also, in terms of mayocide it is making fun of white fragility. The group that does all the genocides should be knocked down a peg or two. Maybe if liberals took the sudden empathy they feel with persecuted people and fold that into their ideology they would do less genocide.
Jokes about the flimsiness of evidence (e.g., about how the Black Book of Communism counts Nazis as victims) of a non-existent genocide are pretty different from joking about doing genocide.
Isn't the term "Mayocide" a parody of the nonexistent "white genocide," intended to mock it and highlight the absurdity? I remember a classic meme from the old sub that was like:
When the mayocide happens and you have to shoot your conrads
Owning a criticism is one of the tactics we use to defang criticism and demonstrate that it has no teeth. It's just another way of joking about the lack of credulity, imo.
Isn't the term "Mayocide" a parody of the nonexistent "white genocide," intended to mock it and highlight the absurdity?
Really context dependent. If some wingnut is ranting about "white genocide" and you're mocking that, sure. But if it's a "unlimited genocide on the first world" comment on a post about a U.S. drone strike or other imperial crime, it doesn't relate to that context. It reads more like "death to America," which often isn't used as a joke, but as an earnest call for the U.S. empire to be defeated.
Is there really a large contingent of people who draw their line between "Death to America," and, "Unlimited genocide of the first world ?" I've never encountered such a person until today.
"Death to America" pops up in the real world occasionally, "unlimited genocide" is entirely online from what I know. Stuff that's edgy and exclusively online should be closely scrutinized.
There's also a pretty justifiable explanation for anyone who goes at "death to America": it's a call for the U.S. empire to be defeated; it's referring to the state, not the people. It's the same thing as saying Israel doesn't have a right to exist -- there's a clear line between talking about state governments vs. the whole population.
Genocide, on the other hand, can't credibly be read as "oh I'm not talking about the people, just the state."
There's also a pretty justifiable explanation for anyone who goes at "unlimited genocide on the first world": it's a joke.
I guess I'm just confused about what your concern is. Like someone who would otherwise be a great fit here is going to wander into Hexbear, see something like:
Show
And they're gonna go, "Oh my heavens! Genocide?!" and run off without asking any sort of clarifying questions about our beliefs or how serious the meme is?
This just seems like complaining for the sake of complaining, frankly.
A lot of "unlimited genocide" comments aren't obviously joking. Many are made in the same style as earnest "death to America" comments, there's a whole contingent of basically ultras who (being generous) are not interested in splitting hairs over when violence is justified, and of course you have the problem seen on every internet forum that makes edgy jokes: some people take them seriously, or at least say they do to be even more edgy.
Also, "it's a joke" is not a bulletproof defense. People have brought up sexual assault jokes -- those and many other types of jokes are "just jokes," but for various reasons we don't tolerate them. Even obvious joke comments like the picture you posted can still be tasteless, offensive, etc.
You have a point mayocide would actually improve things so it isn't 100% a joke. Like, I'd be sad to go but it would be a fair price to pay to bring about the revolution worldwide.
The point is that accusations of genocide are frequently bullshit, and when the topic is treated as sacrosanct it allows people to abuse it by attaching their bullshit lies and propaganda to the word. Most people on this website have been or would be accused of genocide denial for our stances on the "Uighur genocide," and pearl clutching facilitates people not looking at the evidence critically. If you want to engage in every accusation seriously and in good faith, no matter how unreasonable it is, then you do you, but responding with over-the-top sarcastic/ironic acceptance of accusations is a common tactic around here. It's why we have a clock telling us what time it is in Moscow, for instance.
CW for sexual assault on this whole post:
spoiler
Couldn't you say the same thing about the mass rape accusations under the USSR? I genuinely don't see how your line of reasoning excuses genocide jokes but not rape jokes, which we all agree are horrible and tasteless.
I think you might be onto something there. False SA allegations are almost exclusively a thing made up by men to downplay the severity of SA accusations. The thing that makes that diffrent is that SA is not taken seriously enough by society. So the two situations are not really analogous I think.
And I don't see how your line of reasoning wouldn't rule out 9/11 jokes. But that's if we're operating purely on abstract principles rather than looking at what's actually happening on a case-by-case basis.
There are opportunists who use accusations of SA for their own purposes, like you mentioned, accusations towards the USSR, or more recently, the NYT fake story on the subject on behalf of Zionism. But the far greater problem is the opposite - credible accusations being discounted or not taken seriously. This is something that happens on a vast scale, and underreporting is a much bigger issue than over-reporting. If people took SA more seriously, then maybe we would be a little more susceptible to propaganda involving it, but it's worth paying that price of it means addressing the far larger problem.
And let's look at the example of 9/11, in the other direction. There are plenty of innocent people who died or were injured or traumatized by the event. Those people could be online and could see us joking about it. You could argue that there are problems that stem from not taking 9/11 seriously enough, like that, or the whole thing Jon Stewart was on about with them being denied benefits. However, way more harm has been caused by 9/11 being taken too seriously. The much bigger issue are the hundreds of thousands of people who were killed in imperialist wars that used 9/11 as justification. On the whole, it's pretty clear that it's better for people to take 9/11 less seriously as opposed to more seriously
When it comes to genocide, we can see just how credulous people are about it, to the point that one guy
can just make up a bunch of shit and questioning any of it can get a lot of flak in a lot of places. "Genocide denial" doesn't just refer to denying well-documented and conclusively proven genocides, like the Holocaust, but rather many people will apply it to any claim of genocide. Allegations of genocide are upheld as sacrosanct no matter how shaky the evidence is, and this allows those allegations to be thrown around willy-nilly. And you can be sure that they will be primarily directed at AES states and other enemies of the West.
And you might say that people aren't taking (true) claims about the genocide happening to the Palestinians seriously enough, and you would be right. But we're talking upholding claims of genocide in general as being above being joked about, and there's plenty of Zionists who would accuse Hamas of being genocidal. I'll grant there is room for debate, but from my perspective it seems like genocide language is much more extensively weaponized by the people who are actually doing it, and if you're a principled leftist, it's just a fact of life that you're going to have to get used to being called a genocide denier and become somewhat desensitized to such language.
I think you're saying this, but this is why 9/11 jokes are OK: the response has been so horrifically disproportionate that holding those 3000ish casualties above the millions killed in the last 20 years is preposterous. And that was before covid, where we were doing 9/11 numbers every day for a while and now we barely acknowledge that happened.
Jokes about the flimsiness of evidence (e.g., about how the Black Book of Communism counts Nazis as victims) of a non-existent genocide are pretty different from joking about doing genocide.
Also, in terms of mayocide it is making fun of white fragility. The group that does all the genocides should be knocked down a peg or two. Maybe if liberals took the sudden empathy they feel with persecuted people and fold that into their ideology they would do less genocide.
Joking about doing genocide isn't going to convince anyone of anything. It does exactly two things:
Yes, that is what I'm saying.
Isn't the term "Mayocide" a parody of the nonexistent "white genocide," intended to mock it and highlight the absurdity? I remember a classic meme from the old sub that was like:
Owning a criticism is one of the tactics we use to defang criticism and demonstrate that it has no teeth. It's just another way of joking about the lack of credulity, imo.
Really context dependent. If some wingnut is ranting about "white genocide" and you're mocking that, sure. But if it's a "unlimited genocide on the first world" comment on a post about a U.S. drone strike or other imperial crime, it doesn't relate to that context. It reads more like "death to America," which often isn't used as a joke, but as an earnest call for the U.S. empire to be defeated.
Is there really a large contingent of people who draw their line between "Death to America," and, "Unlimited genocide of the first world
?" I've never encountered such a person until today.
"Death to America" pops up in the real world occasionally, "unlimited genocide" is entirely online from what I know. Stuff that's edgy and exclusively online should be closely scrutinized.
There's also a pretty justifiable explanation for anyone who goes
at "death to America": it's a call for the U.S. empire to be defeated; it's referring to the state, not the people. It's the same thing as saying Israel doesn't have a right to exist -- there's a clear line between talking about state governments vs. the whole population.
Genocide, on the other hand, can't credibly be read as "oh I'm not talking about the people, just the state."
There's also a pretty justifiable explanation for anyone who goes
at "unlimited genocide on the first world": it's a joke.
I guess I'm just confused about what your concern is. Like someone who would otherwise be a great fit here is going to wander into Hexbear, see something like:
And they're gonna go, "Oh my heavens! Genocide?!" and run off without asking any sort of clarifying questions about our beliefs or how serious the meme is?
This just seems like complaining for the sake of complaining, frankly.
Two things:
A lot of "unlimited genocide" comments aren't obviously joking. Many are made in the same style as earnest "death to America" comments, there's a whole contingent of basically ultras who (being generous) are not interested in splitting hairs over when violence is justified, and of course you have the problem seen on every internet forum that makes edgy jokes: some people take them seriously, or at least say they do to be even more edgy.
Also, "it's a joke" is not a bulletproof defense. People have brought up sexual assault jokes -- those and many other types of jokes are "just jokes," but for various reasons we don't tolerate them. Even obvious joke comments like the picture you posted can still be tasteless, offensive, etc.
And people (like myself) have explained why they're not at all comparable.
You have a point mayocide would actually improve things so it isn't 100% a joke. Like, I'd be sad to go but it would be a fair price to pay to bring about the revolution worldwide.
challenge failed
The majority of every evil group getting hypothetically
would be worth being called mean
I don’t care when my side does crime