My concern is more the possibility of defining disinformation in some politically conveniemt manner.
Its already happening. In fact, looking at it from a wider perspective than nowadays teenagers are often able to, the modern “fight against disinformation” is just fighting propaganda with one’s own propaganda. And if you read the Hittite and Egyptian descriptions of Battle of Khadesh, it isn’t really a new thing either.
Duh. I keep hearing about a war in Ethiopia since I was born, approaching 4 decades.
In the meantime, the war in Ukraine is just 5 hours from my home city.
So of course I will be interested in a war between a nation that tried (and succeeded in a way) to conquer my country previously, a conflict that is so close that I could easily drive to the warzone in less than a day, than in an eternal conflict in Ethiopia.
“not get You” Don’t forget the packet loss and non-ordered packets.
Even with this extended definition, your argument fails the most important criteria for genocide with the UN definition which is:
The intent is always hard to prove. But I am glad that you agree that the only difference would be the intent ;)
Yet, if you read about some cases, you might see that the intent was not always proven or obvious, and some cases are considered genocide even without intent. For instance, take Holodomor, which is being more and more recognized as a genocide, even though unintentional. But I am happy to talk about other cases.
Telling one person that they can help out by not having kids is rather different from, as the dictionary says
Your definition seems to be quite limited. Many acknowledged genocides would not be treated as such. According to Wikipedia, the UN Genocide Convention is much broader:
Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people[a] in whole or in part. In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly.[1][2]
Spreading an ideology according to which one shouldn’t have kids, thus preventing births, would fall into this definition.
Even suggesting to a whole group of people not to have kids is not the same as killing them.
You are correct, it is not the same as killing them, but no one was arguing that. Again, limiting genocide to the deliberate killing of individuals would be quite a lenient definition, and various laws that targeted various ethnic minorities would not be considered genocides, despite them being considered as ones and having the same exact effect. Consider forced sterilization. You don’t have to forcibly kill anyone, yet probably everyone here would agree that it is a genocide.
This is “don’t have kids” taken to its logical conclusion. Nothing absurd about this.
Pains me that more people are unable to follow the chain of thoughts and reach this conclusion.
Let me entertain a hypothetical solution. Would you suggest to Palestinians to “not have kids” to solve the ethnic conflict in that area?
what is with kbin posters and takes like this man
If anything, this is a non-sequitur.
But maybe there is a grain of truth in there. People who were horrified that the lemmy dev and main mod of lemmy.ml was a proponent of hard left stayed away of lemmy (both SW and instances) and went to kbin instead. And since “don’t have kids” is mostly popular on the more extreme left… you get self-selected opinions.
(honestly, I had no clue that I was not beehaw, just saw a braindead post and replied)
You just became a Disney princess.
Ah, so you support genocide.
Rebecca “elevatorgate” Watson.