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.”
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