Genocide is any group of people. A culture or national group, religious group, race, identity, or whatever else. If you’re identifying a group of people to destroy (not even just kill, but targeted destruction) that’s a genocide.
That definition is way too broad and ignores why the term exists. Genocide is a specific legal concept from the 1948 UN Convention, not a catch-all word for any group of people you decide to label.
The law only covers national, ethnical, racial, or religious groups because those are the categories that have historically been targeted for systematic annihilation. Political groups were explicitly excluded when the convention was drafted for a reason. If you just define it as any group you want to destroy, the word loses all legal weight and precision.
You can call mass violence against other groups a crime against humanity or a war crime—those are still incredibly serious—but calling it genocide just because it fits your personal preference is factually wrong. Precision matters if you actually want to talk about international law rather than just throwing around emotionally charged terms.
Do you have any actual legal basis for your definition, or are you just making it up as you go?
Yeah, and legally Trump wasn’t convicted of rape, because the court that convicted him had a definition that didn’t match the common usage, which the judge explicitly pointed out IIRC. Legal definitions are just that. They’re legal definitions, not the definition. Here’s the wiki page. It starts by saying “Genocide is the partial or total destruction of a human group, committed intentionally.”
Ethnic might? I don’t know how to teach you how to think critically I’m sorry. I would put money on you being American though, you’re that willfully ignorant and obtuse
Technically Texan is a nationality/demonym with a shared culture. You could argue that killing everyone in Texas would be a genocide based on that, but it would be open to interpretation.
I think a better argument would be that killing everyone in Texas would necessitate the extermination of the Tejanos, which is an established ethnicity and shared culture native to Texas.
What? If you are being pedantic by focusing on my first statement and completely ignoring where I elaborated, what are we actually discussing here? My choice of words?
Uhh yeah. Your choice of words in a written communication are pretty important. You said genocide only matters if it’s done to a race. I said you were wrong. You provided the definition, which proved you were wrong. You insulted me. I insulted you back. I’m sorry if this was a difficult chain for you to follow. Better luck next time.
It would require a genocide to clean Texas of all their environmental issues. And as far as I’m concerned, genocide is wrong.
That implies massacring minorities
Genocide is only that when aimed at a race, not a locale
You are free to nuke the whole place by merit of their stance alone
Genocide is any group of people. A culture or national group, religious group, race, identity, or whatever else. If you’re identifying a group of people to destroy (not even just kill, but targeted destruction) that’s a genocide.
That definition is way too broad and ignores why the term exists. Genocide is a specific legal concept from the 1948 UN Convention, not a catch-all word for any group of people you decide to label.
The law only covers national, ethnical, racial, or religious groups because those are the categories that have historically been targeted for systematic annihilation. Political groups were explicitly excluded when the convention was drafted for a reason. If you just define it as any group you want to destroy, the word loses all legal weight and precision.
You can call mass violence against other groups a crime against humanity or a war crime—those are still incredibly serious—but calling it genocide just because it fits your personal preference is factually wrong. Precision matters if you actually want to talk about international law rather than just throwing around emotionally charged terms.
Do you have any actual legal basis for your definition, or are you just making it up as you go?
Yeah, and legally Trump wasn’t convicted of rape, because the court that convicted him had a definition that didn’t match the common usage, which the judge explicitly pointed out IIRC. Legal definitions are just that. They’re legal definitions, not the definition. Here’s the wiki page. It starts by saying “Genocide is the partial or total destruction of a human group, committed intentionally.”
Wiki. That’s your backup? Why not a dictionary for starters
Absolutely incorrect, lol.
Genocide is the deliberate attempt to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
What do you say it is then? Instead of going: “nu-uh!” at things
context often helps the thinkers to recognize the non thinkers
Ethnic might? I don’t know how to teach you how to think critically I’m sorry. I would put money on you being American though, you’re that willfully ignorant and obtuse
Do you find it hard putting pants on in the morning?
Is a nation or state a race? Is any race besides white a minority???
Fuck, you morons are exhausting.
I was going to say the same thing about you, lol. Fuck no, I’m not American.
Technically Texan is a nationality/demonym with a shared culture. You could argue that killing everyone in Texas would be a genocide based on that, but it would be open to interpretation.
I think a better argument would be that killing everyone in Texas would necessitate the extermination of the Tejanos, which is an established ethnicity and shared culture native to Texas.
If you attempt to destroy the entirety of a people in a state/province/nation, I think that’s pretty cut and dry, but yeah I get what you’re saying.
What? If you are being pedantic by focusing on my first statement and completely ignoring where I elaborated, what are we actually discussing here? My choice of words?
Uhh yeah. Your choice of words in a written communication are pretty important. You said genocide only matters if it’s done to a race. I said you were wrong. You provided the definition, which proved you were wrong. You insulted me. I insulted you back. I’m sorry if this was a difficult chain for you to follow. Better luck next time.