funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,673
Location: Right over your left shoulder
Yesterday, 3:11 pm
MaxE wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
MaxE wrote:
I think it wrong to characterize defeat of another tribe as genocide, even if that defeat meant the end of that tribe's history and culture. That's simply how the world worked back then.
So, you believe it's unfair to describe genocidal actions as genocide, so long as the society that committed them was primitive enough?
Kinda seems like an arbitrary exception, no?
Warfare is brutal and bloody, and the only relevance of "primitiveness" to the issue would be that if Kingdom A literally destroys Kingdom B, and especially if Kingdom B started the war, then a "primitive" tribe won't stop and consider whether history will think of them as genocidal if they totally defeat Kingdom B and take control of everything that Kingdom B used to control i.e. seizing all their productive land and other assets e.g. strategic positions and killing (or at least doing nothing to allow for the continued survival of) any of King B's subjects that don't serve their purpose e.g. as slaves or as breeding stock.
That's war and war can have that outcome if the victor is successful enough, and historically victors aren't merciful. Maybe more so in more recent i.e. less "primitive" eras of history.
I won't try to define genocide except to say that it's not a military action. Genocide is visited on helpless civilians by people already in a position of power over them. Consider the Trail of Tears, the Armenian Genocide, the Nazi Holocaust, or the Rwandan Genocide. You can quibble over details e.g. resistance movements such as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, but I think the distinction should be clear.
BTW I don't consider the death of innocent civilians as collateral victims of combat to be genocide. It's awful but it's not genocide.
Quote:
Genocide is the partial or total destruction of a human group, committed intentionally. The popular view conceives of genocide as the large-scale killing of individuals, but in scholarly and legal fields, genocide occurs when the group itself is targeted. Acts of genocide include killing as well as non-lethal acts such as preventing reproduction among the group, the forcible transfer of children to another group, and cultural genocide.
I don't see your exceptions being relevant to commonly accepted definitions of genocide. Intentionally seeking to eliminate a group, or their culture is well within the definition.
That's why the Israeli goal of turning a large number of Palestinians into a small number of Israeli Arabs is inherently genocidal, even if it wasn't being pursued through violent means.
I agree with you that collateral damage isn't the same as intentionally committing genocide, but that's not a valid defence for an openly genocidal entity, like the Zionist state.
Conversely, Canada's residential school system is also an example a tool used to commit genocide, and death wasn't even their primary goal.
MaxE wrote:
Anyway, the world wide movement for genocide of the Israeli (and Jewish) people has already spread so far that even the bots will puke out Anti-Zionist slop unless asked highly targeted questions.
Ironically, the Zionist movement is doing everything they can to turn the AI slopbots into hasbara slopbots. I posted videos regarding this a week or two ago.
Thankfully they're fighting an uphill battle because everyone with eyes can see what's happening, hence the tsunami you describe.
I suspect the Zionist movement is approaching a point where the narcissistic supply runs out and then the real crash out will begin. It'll make Eve Barlow insisting that people calling her Eve Fartlow is genocidal rhetoric seem tame by comparison.
The Zionist movement seems to be what happens when main character syndrome infects a group instead of an individual. The rest of the world are just NPCs in their story, and obviously anyone who opposes them is the bad guy, regardless of their reasons for opposing them.
This is why I describe the Zionist movement as suffering from a form of group narcissism. As far as they're concerned, everyone else is just a supporting character in their story.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Is it wrong to talk about personal issues at work? |
22 Aug 2026, 2:15 pm |
| Mullvad Breaks Silence on Founder’s Political Donation |
25 Jul 2026, 9:12 am |
