|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland27048 Posts
On August 26 2024 02:19 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 02:09 micronesia wrote:On August 26 2024 02:04 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 02:00 micronesia wrote:
I thought the topic was peer-to-peer discussion rather than what the media is reporting. You said "we're" so perhaps you are a member of the media and I didn't realize it. This forum is also media, it's all the same at the end of the day. More exposure to an idea makes people more likely to adopt the idea themselves. It requires repetition because that's how the human brain learns things. You can define media (i.e., a general definition) that way for the purposes of this conversation if you want, but I think there will still be differences in between how traditional media and tl.net discussions result in people believing things. When the consumption is interactive (e.g., this thread), pushing too hard causes people to reverse further away on whatever spectrum. I won't go pull up the research I've seen on that right now, but it definitely works differently than fox-news style brainwashing. I'd argue if someone is more likely to reject an idea after being exposed to it more, then they weren't going to change their mind anyway. They have a fixed view. The people we're trying to reach are those who are open-minded. Some of them are likely to change their view of the conflict when they keep being exposed to the accusation of genocide. And it doesn't take much, a few percent can make all the difference. If I can convince one person, I consider my job done.
Depends on the framing, how people argue it etc.
I’ve been quite aware of the issue for basically as long as I can recall. My late grandfather belonged to various orgs, was active in BDO, my aunty the same except more energetically.
I believe my posting history is rather a clue to some of my sensibilities.
Even I don’t think it’s a particularly applicable example of the term genocide. Many other terms or descriptions, most of them with very negative connotations, not that particular one.
I’m also not a particular subscriber to the ‘well it’s nuanced/difficult so let’s sit on the fence of realpolitik’ school either.
Perhaps more elsewhere than here, but I’ve certainly experienced a ‘if you don’t agree it’s a genocide you’re against us on this topic’, despite almost invariably agreeing on perceptions of almost all other aspects of the conflict.
Which, by repetition can grow into something really quite irritating and actually cause an active backlash and actually the opposite of the intended effect. It largely doesn’t with me and I can remain in the ‘this is irritating’ zone without shifting in reaction.
But I already broadly align in agreement anyway, and have for ages. There are those sympathetic to the issue, but less so, or those closer to the middle who are much more liable to retrench depending on what method of argumentation is used.
There’s plenty of material there without fixating on whether it’s genocide or whatever else. In much the same manner that going ‘Trump is literally Hitler’ may cause an eye roll, and merely just listing things he’s irrefutably done may be more than sufficient.
|
If the functional difference is whether a second government is involved, then it's a distinction without a difference. War implies both sides are fighting, and innocent people are dying on both sides. It's looking pretty one sided from where I'm sitting. If you hate the genocide label, that's your prerogative, but people who don't see a major difference between genocide and an extremely one sided war with high levels of collateral damage aren't wrong.
Edit: I want to be clear that I don't think Hamas didn't start this, I don't think this came out of nowhere, and it's not that they're not party to what's happening and why this started. But we're seeing indiscriminate retaliation that's orders of magnitude greater. At this point it's hard to compare the two sides for me. Hamas can get fucked IMO, but they're going to take Palestine with them.
|
So would you call the Iraq War a genocide?
Because after about a week or so, only one government was fighting, and collateral damage was very one-sidedly happening within Iraq and to Iraqis.
The core difference between war and genocide is the goal. If the goal is to exterminate a people, it is genocide. If the goal is something else, it is not. (There are surely some more exact definitions one could use here). Of course, intent is hard to prove, especially since no one ever admits to wanting to exterminate a people since about 1945.
|
United States44131 Posts
It’s like murder vs lynching. The aggravating factor is contextual. In this context Israel is not only not attempting to wipe out Palestinians, it is trying hard to create a Palestinian state ruled by Palestinians that is capable of addressing the unmet needs that radicalizes the Palestinian people.
For example Russia in Ukraine is genocidal because it seeks to fully destroy the Ukrainian state and Ukrainian cultural identity. In occupied territories it destroys Ukrainian cultural markers like museums and monuments, it forces Ukrainian children to speak Russian, it forcibly conscripts Ukrainian men to fight against Ukraine, it abducts Ukrainian children out to Russian families without tracking which went where, in expressly denies the existence of any Ukrainian identity.
There are genocidal Israelis on the far right. They use dehumanizing language for Palestinians, take Palestinian land, level Palestinian cemeteries, and call for them all to be driven out. All of that is true and I’m going to acknowledge it’s true because otherwise someone will just whatabout it. But none of that is state policy. Until October 7 state policy was to prop up an independent self ruled Gazan state. To provide it with food, utilities, cross border jobs etc. A two state solution was the express goal of Israel and their actions reflected that, they disagreed on the borders and the right of return but there was zero evidence for any policy of eradication, either of Palestinians or their identity.
On October 7 Hamas did their Pearl Harbor/WTC level atrocity as the opening salvo in the current war. But it is a war, not a genocide. That two state solution is still the policy objective, there is just an additional objective now to remove the Hamas government that started and insists on continuing this conflict.
If Hamas were to surrender tomorrow and a new Palestinian government were to come to the table and talk borders, trade, humanitarian corridors, utilities, restitutions for seized land and so forth Israel would be overjoyed. The Palestinians would get a seizable chunk of what they want, after all, there are a lot of Palestinians already living peacefully in Israel. The current war is costing Israel a fortune, they want a ceasefire, they want a stable self governing Palestinian state, they want no more rockets raining down, they want this to be fucking over. But at present the best offer on the table includes Hamas stating “also we reserve the right to put bombs on school buses and abduct and rape your women”. That’s the sticking point. And until we get past that the war will continue.
|
I don't get the same impression that Israel wants a ceasefire. They've been pushing the borders for decades, and if they were just interested in stamping out Hamas and getting their hostages they could've done so. It feels quite a bit like this is only going to end with one state left, to me.
|
Norway28825 Posts
On August 26 2024 03:47 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 02:19 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 02:09 micronesia wrote:On August 26 2024 02:04 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 02:00 micronesia wrote:
I thought the topic was peer-to-peer discussion rather than what the media is reporting. You said "we're" so perhaps you are a member of the media and I didn't realize it. This forum is also media, it's all the same at the end of the day. More exposure to an idea makes people more likely to adopt the idea themselves. It requires repetition because that's how the human brain learns things. You can define media (i.e., a general definition) that way for the purposes of this conversation if you want, but I think there will still be differences in between how traditional media and tl.net discussions result in people believing things. When the consumption is interactive (e.g., this thread), pushing too hard causes people to reverse further away on whatever spectrum. I won't go pull up the research I've seen on that right now, but it definitely works differently than fox-news style brainwashing. I'd argue if someone is more likely to reject an idea after being exposed to it more, then they weren't going to change their mind anyway. They have a fixed view. The people we're trying to reach are those who are open-minded. Some of them are likely to change their view of the conflict when they keep being exposed to the accusation of genocide. And it doesn't take much, a few percent can make all the difference. If I can convince one person, I consider my job done. Depends on the framing, how people argue it etc. I’ve been quite aware of the issue for basically as long as I can recall. My late grandfather belonged to various orgs, was active in BDO, my aunty the same except more energetically. I believe my posting history is rather a clue to some of my sensibilities. Even I don’t think it’s a particularly applicable example of the term genocide. Many other terms or descriptions, most of them with very negative connotations, not that particular one. I’m also not a particular subscriber to the ‘well it’s nuanced/difficult so let’s sit on the fence of realpolitik’ school either. Perhaps more elsewhere than here, but I’ve certainly experienced a ‘if you don’t agree it’s a genocide you’re against us on this topic’, despite almost invariably agreeing on perceptions of almost all other aspects of the conflict. Which, by repetition can grow into something really quite irritating and actually cause an active backlash and actually the opposite of the intended effect. It largely doesn’t with me and I can remain in the ‘this is irritating’ zone without shifting in reaction. But I already broadly align in agreement anyway, and have for ages. There are those sympathetic to the issue, but less so, or those closer to the middle who are much more liable to retrench depending on what method of argumentation is used. There’s plenty of material there without fixating on whether it’s genocide or whatever else. In much the same manner that going ‘Trump is literally Hitler’ may cause an eye roll, and merely just listing things he’s irrefutably done may be more than sufficient.
Tbh in Norway, where public opinion is and our politicians are much more critical of Israel and supportive of Palestine, the word for 'genocide' (folkemord) is never used and the word for 'ethnic cleansing' (etnisk rensning) is also mostly entirely absent. I think there's something to your bolded paragraph which ends up being off-putting to the point of being detrimental to the support of Palestinians: When people use the phrase 'genocide' to describe what is happening, people who are supportive of Israel end up only having to argue against that phrasing, which is far easier to do than to argue that Israel is in the right 'overall'. Tbh personally I think 'ethnic cleansing' is a rather accurate description and much harder to dispute (genocide tends to be countered by 'but their population is increasing', it is however hard to argue that palestinian territory is), but even then, I don't really care about having that discussion, so it's not a phrase I tend to use.
Imo the most efficient lines of attack are the ones that are hardest to dispute.
And yeah, your closing paragraph is much the same - describing Trump as Hitler makes defending him extremely easy because it's fairly easy to point to ways he is not, while defending Trump without getting to point at the lack of concentration camps is harder. I think this is why the 'weird' angle of attack has seemingly been much more effective than the 'threat to democracy' was - it's impossible to dispute that Trump is weird.
|
United States44131 Posts
On August 26 2024 04:03 NewSunshine wrote:
I don't get the same impression that Israel wants a ceasefire. They've been pushing the borders for decades, and if they were just interested in stamping out Hamas and getting their hostages they could've done so. It feels quite a bit like this is only going to end with one state left, to me.
I'm curious about this claim. How would you have gone about stamping out Hamas and getting the hostages back? Keeping in mind that Hamas is embedded like a tick deep in the Gazan infrastructure, that their leadership is in Qatar, and that their arms factories and financing are in Iran.
Also why on earth would Israel want to administer Gaza? Gaza is an unfixable catastrophe. No Arab nation is willing to touch it with a barge pole. Half the population are children who have never known a working society, the other half is young adults who have also never known a working society, the intergenerational trauma is off the fucking charts, the population is deeply propagandized and radicalized, the main religion is a misogynistic homophobic fringe death cult offshoot of Islam that most other Islamic states actively fight against, they have no education, there is no economic infrastructure, there is no land to feed the people, no jobs, no nothing.
Everyone in the region has already recognized the reality of Gaza being a write off. If a benevolent Palestinian absolute dictator came to power in Gaza and wanted to try to unfuck it the first thing he'd do is sterilize about 80% of the population, then work with any other country he could find to relocate as many of the remaining people as he could for a remittance based economy. He'd suspend Habeus Corpus, take absolute control over information to limit the impact of Iranian psyops, open Foxconn style exploitative factories, ban association with the more extreme religious sects etc. In a few decades we could have a population that could actually be fed with the land in Gaza, housed in Gaza, and sustained by Gaza. It could afford fuel, medicine etc. and the people living there would have something in their lives that was worth living for. They'd have peace, stability, community. Things could be relaxed a little because in that hypothetical future when Iran asks if anyone would like to be a suicide bomber there wouldn't be so many volunteers.
But absolutely nobody wants to be the guy who massacres Gazan protesters and forcibly sterilizes the population for very obvious reasons. And so the more humane solution the international community, including all the Arab states, have chosen is to simply allow Gaza to have the highest population growth in the planet until we reach a critical mass where children are stacked on children and then bomb it whenever the intergenerational trauma bubbles over.
Gaza is not getting better. Gaza is getting worse every year. Nobody wants to fucking touch Gaza, least of all Israel. There will never be a one state solution that covers Gaza. Gaza is poisoned beyond redemption, nobody wants to swallow it.
|
Labeling things genocide is en vogue. At least the Palestinian genocide is more believable than the trans genocide or the black genocide at the hands of genocidal police officers
|
On August 26 2024 03:19 BlackJack wrote:
Yeah, literally any war could be called genocide if thousands of innocent civilians dying is your standard
Civilians dying is certainly not the sole factor. Israel is engaging in activities such as ethnic cleansing and starvation that push the envelope much further towards genocide. You can argue the degree of genocide, you can argue we're only (in quotation marks) 70% there, but no more than that. If you look at all the factors as a whole instead of singling out one or two factors (war, civilian deaths) while ignoring others (ethnic cleansing, starvation), the picture changes very dramatically from a regular war.
I personally don't care about the difference between 70% genocide and 100% genocide. It is effectively the same to me because both accomplishes the same thing, the only difference is the scale and the admission of intent.
As Simberto correctly points out, intent is hard to prove and Israel doesn't openly admit to the intent of genocide (why would they?) That doesn't mean they're not engaging in it, as Nebuchad and others have proven time and time again there is a widespread extremist element in the Israeli government that is asking for the eradication of Palestinians. We also have the open declaration by Netanyahu himself that he foresees no future in which there exists a Palestinian state. We have Israel's consistent refusal to be independently investigated. We have Israel's intent to destroy the UNRWA, which is an essential humanitarian organization in the region. We have many examples of Israel engaging in war crimes in Gaza, in the West bank, and in Israeli prisons.
I put two and two together. I look at the facts and I ask myself a simple question: if I was eager to prove that I am not engaging in genocide, would I act the way the Israeli government does or would I make a greater effort to prove my innocence?
If you don't come to the same conclusion I come to, at least you have to admit the evidence is damning.
|
Northern Ireland27048 Posts
On August 26 2024 04:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 03:47 WombaT wrote:On August 26 2024 02:19 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 02:09 micronesia wrote:On August 26 2024 02:04 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 02:00 micronesia wrote:
I thought the topic was peer-to-peer discussion rather than what the media is reporting. You said "we're" so perhaps you are a member of the media and I didn't realize it. This forum is also media, it's all the same at the end of the day. More exposure to an idea makes people more likely to adopt the idea themselves. It requires repetition because that's how the human brain learns things. You can define media (i.e., a general definition) that way for the purposes of this conversation if you want, but I think there will still be differences in between how traditional media and tl.net discussions result in people believing things. When the consumption is interactive (e.g., this thread), pushing too hard causes people to reverse further away on whatever spectrum. I won't go pull up the research I've seen on that right now, but it definitely works differently than fox-news style brainwashing. I'd argue if someone is more likely to reject an idea after being exposed to it more, then they weren't going to change their mind anyway. They have a fixed view. The people we're trying to reach are those who are open-minded. Some of them are likely to change their view of the conflict when they keep being exposed to the accusation of genocide. And it doesn't take much, a few percent can make all the difference. If I can convince one person, I consider my job done. Depends on the framing, how people argue it etc. I’ve been quite aware of the issue for basically as long as I can recall. My late grandfather belonged to various orgs, was active in BDO, my aunty the same except more energetically. I believe my posting history is rather a clue to some of my sensibilities. Even I don’t think it’s a particularly applicable example of the term genocide. Many other terms or descriptions, most of them with very negative connotations, not that particular one. I’m also not a particular subscriber to the ‘well it’s nuanced/difficult so let’s sit on the fence of realpolitik’ school either. Perhaps more elsewhere than here, but I’ve certainly experienced a ‘if you don’t agree it’s a genocide you’re against us on this topic’, despite almost invariably agreeing on perceptions of almost all other aspects of the conflict. Which, by repetition can grow into something really quite irritating and actually cause an active backlash and actually the opposite of the intended effect. It largely doesn’t with me and I can remain in the ‘this is irritating’ zone without shifting in reaction. But I already broadly align in agreement anyway, and have for ages. There are those sympathetic to the issue, but less so, or those closer to the middle who are much more liable to retrench depending on what method of argumentation is used. There’s plenty of material there without fixating on whether it’s genocide or whatever else. In much the same manner that going ‘Trump is literally Hitler’ may cause an eye roll, and merely just listing things he’s irrefutably done may be more than sufficient. Tbh in Norway, where public opinion is and our politicians are much more critical of Israel and supportive of Palestine, the word for 'genocide' (folkemord) is never used and the word for 'ethnic cleansing' (etnisk rensning) is also mostly entirely absent. I think there's something to your bolded paragraph which ends up being off-putting to the point of being detrimental to the support of Palestinians: When people use the phrase 'genocide' to describe what is happening, people who are supportive of Israel end up only having to argue against that phrasing, which is far easier to do than to argue that Israel is in the right 'overall'. Tbh personally I think 'ethnic cleansing' is a rather accurate description and much harder to dispute (genocide tends to be countered by 'but their population is increasing', it is however hard to argue that palestinian territory is), but even then, I don't really care about having that discussion, so it's not a phrase I tend to use. Imo the most efficient lines of attack are the ones that are hardest to dispute. And yeah, your closing paragraph is much the same - describing Trump as Hitler makes defending him extremely easy because it's fairly easy to point to ways he is not, while defending Trump without getting to point at the lack of concentration camps is harder. I think this is why the 'weird' angle of attack has seemingly been much more effective than the 'threat to democracy' was - it's impossible to dispute that Trump is weird.
Can’t disagree with any of that like
|
On August 26 2024 02:19 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 02:09 micronesia wrote:On August 26 2024 02:04 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 02:00 micronesia wrote:
I thought the topic was peer-to-peer discussion rather than what the media is reporting. You said "we're" so perhaps you are a member of the media and I didn't realize it. This forum is also media, it's all the same at the end of the day. More exposure to an idea makes people more likely to adopt the idea themselves. It requires repetition because that's how the human brain learns things. You can define media (i.e., a general definition) that way for the purposes of this conversation if you want, but I think there will still be differences in between how traditional media and tl.net discussions result in people believing things. When the consumption is interactive (e.g., this thread), pushing too hard causes people to reverse further away on whatever spectrum. I won't go pull up the research I've seen on that right now, but it definitely works differently than fox-news style brainwashing. I'd argue if someone is more likely to reject an idea after being exposed to it more, then they weren't going to change their mind anyway. They have a fixed view. The people we're trying to reach are those who are open-minded. Some of them are likely to change their view of the conflict when they keep being exposed to the accusation of genocide. And it doesn't take much, a few percent can make all the difference. If I can convince one person, I consider my job done.
I'm mostly trying to reach the majority of Biden voters which know it is genocide and to a lesser degree, the next largest group, those that aren't sure.
The much smaller minority of Democrats that don't believe it is genocide are not really my focus for many reasons.
|
Northern Ireland27048 Posts
On August 26 2024 05:07 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 03:19 BlackJack wrote:
Yeah, literally any war could be called genocide if thousands of innocent civilians dying is your standard Civilians dying is certainly not the sole factor. Israel is engaging in activities such as ethnic cleansing and starvation that push the envelope much further towards genocide. You can argue the degree of genocide, you can argue we're only (in quotation marks) 70% there, but no more than that. If you look at all the factors as a whole instead of singling out one or two factors (war, civilian deaths) while ignoring others (ethnic cleansing, starvation), the picture changes very dramatically from a regular war. I personally don't care about the difference between 70% genocide and 100% genocide. It is effectively the same to me because both accomplishes the same thing, the only difference is the scale and the admission of intent. As Simberto correctly points out, intent is hard to prove and Israel doesn't openly admit to the intent of genocide (why would they?) That doesn't mean they're not engaging in it, as Nebuchad and others have proven time and time again there is a widespread extremist element in the Israeli government that is asking for the eradication of Palestinians. We also have the open declaration by Netanyahu himself that he foresees no future in which there exists a Palestinian state. We have Israel's consistent refusal to be independently investigated. We have Israel's intent to destroy the UNRWA, which is an essential humanitarian organization in the region. We have many examples of Israel engaging in war crimes in Gaza, in the West bank, and in Israeli prisons. I put two and two together. I look at the facts and I ask myself a simple question: if I was eager to prove that I am not engaging in genocide, would I act the way the Israeli government does or would I make a greater effort to prove my innocence? If you don't come to the same conclusion I come to, at least you have to admit the evidence is damning.
Israel would much rather the Palestinians just fuck off and go elsewhere and expand wholesale into the vacated areas.
Which, obviously is hardly a noble egalitarian pursuit, and one that many absolutely oppose including myself. But genocide it ain’t, for many people anyway.
In common parlance (rather than technical designations) the term has certain connotations to most folks. The Nazis weren’t merely content to shove the Jews next door, they’d have preferred if they just didn’t exist, and pursued policies broadly in alignment with that.
Which is the kind of association genpopTM make with the term genocide.
People hear the term ‘serial killer’ and their mind goes to some kind of Hannibal Lecter kind of cat. It’s the equivalent of spending inordinate amounts of time trying to convince someone that some bloke who killed 2 people in cold blood is a serial killer. Maybe it’s an argument you win, maybe not. Alternatively, one could zone in on the ‘killing 2 people in cold blood is bad’ part without trying to invoke a particular term, and it’s much harder to dispute that statement.
|
On August 26 2024 05:33 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 05:07 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 03:19 BlackJack wrote:
Yeah, literally any war could be called genocide if thousands of innocent civilians dying is your standard Civilians dying is certainly not the sole factor. Israel is engaging in activities such as ethnic cleansing and starvation that push the envelope much further towards genocide. You can argue the degree of genocide, you can argue we're only (in quotation marks) 70% there, but no more than that. If you look at all the factors as a whole instead of singling out one or two factors (war, civilian deaths) while ignoring others (ethnic cleansing, starvation), the picture changes very dramatically from a regular war. I personally don't care about the difference between 70% genocide and 100% genocide. It is effectively the same to me because both accomplishes the same thing, the only difference is the scale and the admission of intent. As Simberto correctly points out, intent is hard to prove and Israel doesn't openly admit to the intent of genocide (why would they?) That doesn't mean they're not engaging in it, as Nebuchad and others have proven time and time again there is a widespread extremist element in the Israeli government that is asking for the eradication of Palestinians. We also have the open declaration by Netanyahu himself that he foresees no future in which there exists a Palestinian state. We have Israel's consistent refusal to be independently investigated. We have Israel's intent to destroy the UNRWA, which is an essential humanitarian organization in the region. We have many examples of Israel engaging in war crimes in Gaza, in the West bank, and in Israeli prisons. I put two and two together. I look at the facts and I ask myself a simple question: if I was eager to prove that I am not engaging in genocide, would I act the way the Israeli government does or would I make a greater effort to prove my innocence? If you don't come to the same conclusion I come to, at least you have to admit the evidence is damning. Israel would much rather the Palestinians just fuck off and go elsewhere and expand wholesale into the vacated areas. Which, obviously is hardly a noble egalitarian pursuit, and one that many absolutely oppose including myself. But genocide it ain’t, for many people anyway. In common parlance (rather than technical designations) the term has certain connotations to most folks. The Nazis weren’t merely content to shove the Jews next door, they’d have preferred if they just didn’t exist, and pursued policies broadly in alignment with that. Which is the kind of association genpopTM make with the term genocide. People hear the term ‘serial killer’ and their mind goes to some kind of Hannibal Lecter kind of cat. It’s the equivalent of spending inordinate amounts of time trying to convince someone that some bloke who killed 2 people in cold blood is a serial killer. Maybe it’s an argument you win, maybe not. Alternatively, one could zone in on the ‘killing 2 people in cold blood is bad’ part without trying to invoke a particular term, and it’s much harder to dispute that statement.
The example of a serial killer is actually pretty apt. Maybe not perfectly the same, but very useful nonetheless.
If you and I were to argue about this, and say I take the stance that two deaths make a serial killer and you argue that three or more deaths are required, we'd be arguing about a 33% difference. In my case the serial killer is two thirds there and your objection would be "yes, but what about the final third?" You might see why this doesn't exactly counter my argument in essence, it really only changes the question of scale.
If Israel had killed two hundred thousand Palestinians, would that amount to genocide? The answer according to law is: no. Are you surprised yet?
My answer is: by that point people would have to be out of their minds to keep denying it.
We're at 40 000 deaths.
|
On August 26 2024 05:33 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 05:07 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 03:19 BlackJack wrote:
Yeah, literally any war could be called genocide if thousands of innocent civilians dying is your standard Civilians dying is certainly not the sole factor. Israel is engaging in activities such as ethnic cleansing and starvation that push the envelope much further towards genocide. You can argue the degree of genocide, you can argue we're only (in quotation marks) 70% there, but no more than that. If you look at all the factors as a whole instead of singling out one or two factors (war, civilian deaths) while ignoring others (ethnic cleansing, starvation), the picture changes very dramatically from a regular war. I personally don't care about the difference between 70% genocide and 100% genocide. It is effectively the same to me because both accomplishes the same thing, the only difference is the scale and the admission of intent. As Simberto correctly points out, intent is hard to prove and Israel doesn't openly admit to the intent of genocide (why would they?) That doesn't mean they're not engaging in it, as Nebuchad and others have proven time and time again there is a widespread extremist element in the Israeli government that is asking for the eradication of Palestinians. We also have the open declaration by Netanyahu himself that he foresees no future in which there exists a Palestinian state. We have Israel's consistent refusal to be independently investigated. We have Israel's intent to destroy the UNRWA, which is an essential humanitarian organization in the region. We have many examples of Israel engaging in war crimes in Gaza, in the West bank, and in Israeli prisons. I put two and two together. I look at the facts and I ask myself a simple question: if I was eager to prove that I am not engaging in genocide, would I act the way the Israeli government does or would I make a greater effort to prove my innocence? If you don't come to the same conclusion I come to, at least you have to admit the evidence is damning. + Show Spoiler +Israel would much rather the Palestinians just fuck off and go elsewhere and expand wholesale into the vacated areas.
Which, obviously is hardly a noble egalitarian pursuit, and one that many absolutely oppose including myself. But genocide it ain’t, for many people anyway.
In common parlance (rather than technical designations) the term has certain connotations to most folks. The Nazis weren’t merely content to shove the Jews next door, they’d have preferred if they just didn’t exist, and pursued policies broadly in alignment with that. + Show Spoiler +Which is the kind of association genpopTM make with the term genocide.
People hear the term ‘serial killer’ and their mind goes to some kind of Hannibal Lecter kind of cat. It’s the equivalent of spending inordinate amounts of time trying to convince someone that some bloke who killed 2 people in cold blood is a serial killer. Maybe it’s an argument you win, maybe not. Alternatively, one could zone in on the ‘killing 2 people in cold blood is bad’ part without trying to invoke a particular term, and it’s much harder to dispute that statement.
They tried moving them first. The Haavara agreement was part of one of the "solutions" before the "final solution". The rhetoric about no one else wanting the Palestinians mimics what Nazis said about Jewish people in the years leading up to them finding their "final solution". Israel is, in part, a Nazi creation intended to solve the "problem" of Jewish people in Germany, that was supported for a time by the West as an alternative to taking in Jewish people themselves.
|
On August 26 2024 03:55 Simberto wrote:
So would you call the Iraq War a genocide?
Because after about a week or so, only one government was fighting, and collateral damage was very one-sidedly happening within Iraq and to Iraqis.
The core difference between war and genocide is the goal. If the goal is to exterminate a people, it is genocide. If the goal is something else, it is not. (There are surely some more exact definitions one could use here). Of course, intent is hard to prove, especially since no one ever admits to wanting to exterminate a people since about 1945.
I would expand this a little bit. There are probably two conflicting uses of the word in this thread, one being rhetorical and one being logical. It's fine to embellish and use whatever kind of language you want to describe something. The problem is conflating that to an actual argument.
For a definition to reason around, if the goal or the result is exterminating an entire kind of people, it's functionally worth labeling genocide, for me. A genocide is a lengthy, involved thing usually, unless nuking. In either case, you don't want to be in a situation where you have to wait until everyone died before you can call it a genocide, but there has to be movement towards that result in some way. I do not see Palestinians being exterminated for existing - nor do I see a future where Palestinians have all been exterminated incidentally. I see more people dying in the Middle East than a short term average but that's a far cry from genocide and may very well still be more peaceful than longer term averages, I wouldn't be arrogant enough to claim to know. Like if someone doesn't like Drumpf and calls him a fascist or rapist, fine, you got someone's attention for a bit. But that's as far as it can go without proof. To use that as the basis of claiming something else, like that I need to cast a vote for Raytheon to save democracy, it needs to be demonstrated, and it's going to be disputed, and one of the points defending it isn't "a bunch of other people also used it rhetorically."
|
On August 26 2024 05:51 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 05:33 WombaT wrote:On August 26 2024 05:07 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 03:19 BlackJack wrote:
Yeah, literally any war could be called genocide if thousands of innocent civilians dying is your standard Civilians dying is certainly not the sole factor. Israel is engaging in activities such as ethnic cleansing and starvation that push the envelope much further towards genocide. You can argue the degree of genocide, you can argue we're only (in quotation marks) 70% there, but no more than that. If you look at all the factors as a whole instead of singling out one or two factors (war, civilian deaths) while ignoring others (ethnic cleansing, starvation), the picture changes very dramatically from a regular war. I personally don't care about the difference between 70% genocide and 100% genocide. It is effectively the same to me because both accomplishes the same thing, the only difference is the scale and the admission of intent. As Simberto correctly points out, intent is hard to prove and Israel doesn't openly admit to the intent of genocide (why would they?) That doesn't mean they're not engaging in it, as Nebuchad and others have proven time and time again there is a widespread extremist element in the Israeli government that is asking for the eradication of Palestinians. We also have the open declaration by Netanyahu himself that he foresees no future in which there exists a Palestinian state. We have Israel's consistent refusal to be independently investigated. We have Israel's intent to destroy the UNRWA, which is an essential humanitarian organization in the region. We have many examples of Israel engaging in war crimes in Gaza, in the West bank, and in Israeli prisons. I put two and two together. I look at the facts and I ask myself a simple question: if I was eager to prove that I am not engaging in genocide, would I act the way the Israeli government does or would I make a greater effort to prove my innocence? If you don't come to the same conclusion I come to, at least you have to admit the evidence is damning. Israel would much rather the Palestinians just fuck off and go elsewhere and expand wholesale into the vacated areas. Which, obviously is hardly a noble egalitarian pursuit, and one that many absolutely oppose including myself. But genocide it ain’t, for many people anyway. In common parlance (rather than technical designations) the term has certain connotations to most folks. The Nazis weren’t merely content to shove the Jews next door, they’d have preferred if they just didn’t exist, and pursued policies broadly in alignment with that. Which is the kind of association genpopTM make with the term genocide. People hear the term ‘serial killer’ and their mind goes to some kind of Hannibal Lecter kind of cat. It’s the equivalent of spending inordinate amounts of time trying to convince someone that some bloke who killed 2 people in cold blood is a serial killer. Maybe it’s an argument you win, maybe not. Alternatively, one could zone in on the ‘killing 2 people in cold blood is bad’ part without trying to invoke a particular term, and it’s much harder to dispute that statement. The example of a serial killer is actually pretty apt. Maybe not perfectly the same, but very useful nonetheless. If you and I were to argue about this, and say I take the stance that two deaths make a serial killer and you argue that three or more deaths are required, we'd be arguing about a 33% difference. In my case the serial killer is two thirds there and your objection would be "yes, but what about the final third?" You might see why this doesn't exactly counter my argument in essence, it really only changes the question of scale. If Israel had killed two hundred thousand Palestinians, would that amount to genocide? The answer according to law is: no. Are you surprised yet? My answer is: by that point people would have to be out of their minds to keep denying it. We're at 40 000 deaths.
40k / 2 million. Ok we are at 2% genocide assuming Palestinians in West Bank/Israel and abroad don’t count
|
Is someone that kills only one person 33% serial killer? Or are they a serial killer on a smaller scale? If a bicycle has 2 wheels and a tricycle has 3 wheels isn’t a bike mostly just a tricycle on a smaller scale? Or is it simply not a tricycle? Why not use the words we have for things instead of insisting they are some % of something they are not?
|
United States44131 Posts
On August 26 2024 05:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 05:33 WombaT wrote:On August 26 2024 05:07 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 03:19 BlackJack wrote:
Yeah, literally any war could be called genocide if thousands of innocent civilians dying is your standard Civilians dying is certainly not the sole factor. Israel is engaging in activities such as ethnic cleansing and starvation that push the envelope much further towards genocide. You can argue the degree of genocide, you can argue we're only (in quotation marks) 70% there, but no more than that. If you look at all the factors as a whole instead of singling out one or two factors (war, civilian deaths) while ignoring others (ethnic cleansing, starvation), the picture changes very dramatically from a regular war. I personally don't care about the difference between 70% genocide and 100% genocide. It is effectively the same to me because both accomplishes the same thing, the only difference is the scale and the admission of intent. As Simberto correctly points out, intent is hard to prove and Israel doesn't openly admit to the intent of genocide (why would they?) That doesn't mean they're not engaging in it, as Nebuchad and others have proven time and time again there is a widespread extremist element in the Israeli government that is asking for the eradication of Palestinians. We also have the open declaration by Netanyahu himself that he foresees no future in which there exists a Palestinian state. We have Israel's consistent refusal to be independently investigated. We have Israel's intent to destroy the UNRWA, which is an essential humanitarian organization in the region. We have many examples of Israel engaging in war crimes in Gaza, in the West bank, and in Israeli prisons. I put two and two together. I look at the facts and I ask myself a simple question: if I was eager to prove that I am not engaging in genocide, would I act the way the Israeli government does or would I make a greater effort to prove my innocence? If you don't come to the same conclusion I come to, at least you have to admit the evidence is damning. + Show Spoiler +Israel would much rather the Palestinians just fuck off and go elsewhere and expand wholesale into the vacated areas.
Which, obviously is hardly a noble egalitarian pursuit, and one that many absolutely oppose including myself. But genocide it ain’t, for many people anyway.
In common parlance (rather than technical designations) the term has certain connotations to most folks. The Nazis weren’t merely content to shove the Jews next door, they’d have preferred if they just didn’t exist, and pursued policies broadly in alignment with that. + Show Spoiler +Which is the kind of association genpopTM make with the term genocide.
People hear the term ‘serial killer’ and their mind goes to some kind of Hannibal Lecter kind of cat. It’s the equivalent of spending inordinate amounts of time trying to convince someone that some bloke who killed 2 people in cold blood is a serial killer. Maybe it’s an argument you win, maybe not. Alternatively, one could zone in on the ‘killing 2 people in cold blood is bad’ part without trying to invoke a particular term, and it’s much harder to dispute that statement. They tried moving them first. The Haavara agreement was part of one of the "solutions" before the "final solution". The rhetoric about no one else wanting the Palestinians mimics what Nazis said about Jewish people in the years leading up to them finding their "final solution". Israel is, in part, a Nazi creation intended to solve the "problem" of Jewish people in Germany, that was supported for a time by the West as an alternative to taking in Jewish people themselves.
Hitler wrote a book in which he explained that the various races of the world were in a Darwinistic contest and that the master race would win by destroying the others. I don't understand why you're engaging in Nazi revisionism and pretending that they were at one point moderates who turned evil. They were very clear on their ideology. You're either unclear on the facts or are trying to make a parallel in really bad taste.
|
On August 26 2024 06:03 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 05:51 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 05:33 WombaT wrote:On August 26 2024 05:07 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 03:19 BlackJack wrote:
Yeah, literally any war could be called genocide if thousands of innocent civilians dying is your standard Civilians dying is certainly not the sole factor. Israel is engaging in activities such as ethnic cleansing and starvation that push the envelope much further towards genocide. You can argue the degree of genocide, you can argue we're only (in quotation marks) 70% there, but no more than that. If you look at all the factors as a whole instead of singling out one or two factors (war, civilian deaths) while ignoring others (ethnic cleansing, starvation), the picture changes very dramatically from a regular war. I personally don't care about the difference between 70% genocide and 100% genocide. It is effectively the same to me because both accomplishes the same thing, the only difference is the scale and the admission of intent. As Simberto correctly points out, intent is hard to prove and Israel doesn't openly admit to the intent of genocide (why would they?) That doesn't mean they're not engaging in it, as Nebuchad and others have proven time and time again there is a widespread extremist element in the Israeli government that is asking for the eradication of Palestinians. We also have the open declaration by Netanyahu himself that he foresees no future in which there exists a Palestinian state. We have Israel's consistent refusal to be independently investigated. We have Israel's intent to destroy the UNRWA, which is an essential humanitarian organization in the region. We have many examples of Israel engaging in war crimes in Gaza, in the West bank, and in Israeli prisons. I put two and two together. I look at the facts and I ask myself a simple question: if I was eager to prove that I am not engaging in genocide, would I act the way the Israeli government does or would I make a greater effort to prove my innocence? If you don't come to the same conclusion I come to, at least you have to admit the evidence is damning. Israel would much rather the Palestinians just fuck off and go elsewhere and expand wholesale into the vacated areas. Which, obviously is hardly a noble egalitarian pursuit, and one that many absolutely oppose including myself. But genocide it ain’t, for many people anyway. In common parlance (rather than technical designations) the term has certain connotations to most folks. The Nazis weren’t merely content to shove the Jews next door, they’d have preferred if they just didn’t exist, and pursued policies broadly in alignment with that. Which is the kind of association genpopTM make with the term genocide. People hear the term ‘serial killer’ and their mind goes to some kind of Hannibal Lecter kind of cat. It’s the equivalent of spending inordinate amounts of time trying to convince someone that some bloke who killed 2 people in cold blood is a serial killer. Maybe it’s an argument you win, maybe not. Alternatively, one could zone in on the ‘killing 2 people in cold blood is bad’ part without trying to invoke a particular term, and it’s much harder to dispute that statement. The example of a serial killer is actually pretty apt. Maybe not perfectly the same, but very useful nonetheless. If you and I were to argue about this, and say I take the stance that two deaths make a serial killer and you argue that three or more deaths are required, we'd be arguing about a 33% difference. In my case the serial killer is two thirds there and your objection would be "yes, but what about the final third?" You might see why this doesn't exactly counter my argument in essence, it really only changes the question of scale. If Israel had killed two hundred thousand Palestinians, would that amount to genocide? The answer according to law is: no. Are you surprised yet? My answer is: by that point people would have to be out of their minds to keep denying it. We're at 40 000 deaths. 40k / 2 million. Ok we are at 2% genocide assuming Palestinians in West Bank/Israel and abroad don’t count
And 2% is far more than sufficient - purely number wise - to declare genocide. My point is that, if the number was 200 000, people would no longer be objecting to the accusation. So why are they objecting to 40 000 being genocide? It's a completely arbitrary line. There is not a meaningful difference in terms of how atrocious Israel's actions are, the only difference is the specificity of the term that's being used.
The people who are objecting to the term "genocide" are using very flimsy reasoning. Basically they're making a difference between mass murder and worse mass murder and arguing that one is "killing" and the other is "murder".
|
On August 26 2024 06:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 05:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2024 05:33 WombaT wrote:On August 26 2024 05:07 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 03:19 BlackJack wrote:
Yeah, literally any war could be called genocide if thousands of innocent civilians dying is your standard Civilians dying is certainly not the sole factor. Israel is engaging in activities such as ethnic cleansing and starvation that push the envelope much further towards genocide. You can argue the degree of genocide, you can argue we're only (in quotation marks) 70% there, but no more than that. If you look at all the factors as a whole instead of singling out one or two factors (war, civilian deaths) while ignoring others (ethnic cleansing, starvation), the picture changes very dramatically from a regular war. I personally don't care about the difference between 70% genocide and 100% genocide. It is effectively the same to me because both accomplishes the same thing, the only difference is the scale and the admission of intent. As Simberto correctly points out, intent is hard to prove and Israel doesn't openly admit to the intent of genocide (why would they?) That doesn't mean they're not engaging in it, as Nebuchad and others have proven time and time again there is a widespread extremist element in the Israeli government that is asking for the eradication of Palestinians. We also have the open declaration by Netanyahu himself that he foresees no future in which there exists a Palestinian state. We have Israel's consistent refusal to be independently investigated. We have Israel's intent to destroy the UNRWA, which is an essential humanitarian organization in the region. We have many examples of Israel engaging in war crimes in Gaza, in the West bank, and in Israeli prisons. I put two and two together. I look at the facts and I ask myself a simple question: if I was eager to prove that I am not engaging in genocide, would I act the way the Israeli government does or would I make a greater effort to prove my innocence? If you don't come to the same conclusion I come to, at least you have to admit the evidence is damning. + Show Spoiler +Israel would much rather the Palestinians just fuck off and go elsewhere and expand wholesale into the vacated areas.
Which, obviously is hardly a noble egalitarian pursuit, and one that many absolutely oppose including myself. But genocide it ain’t, for many people anyway.
In common parlance (rather than technical designations) the term has certain connotations to most folks. The Nazis weren’t merely content to shove the Jews next door, they’d have preferred if they just didn’t exist, and pursued policies broadly in alignment with that. + Show Spoiler +Which is the kind of association genpopTM make with the term genocide.
People hear the term ‘serial killer’ and their mind goes to some kind of Hannibal Lecter kind of cat. It’s the equivalent of spending inordinate amounts of time trying to convince someone that some bloke who killed 2 people in cold blood is a serial killer. Maybe it’s an argument you win, maybe not. Alternatively, one could zone in on the ‘killing 2 people in cold blood is bad’ part without trying to invoke a particular term, and it’s much harder to dispute that statement. They tried moving them first. The Haavara agreement was part of one of the "solutions" before the "final solution". The rhetoric about no one else wanting the Palestinians mimics what Nazis said about Jewish people in the years leading up to them finding their "final solution". Israel is, in part, a Nazi creation intended to solve the "problem" of Jewish people in Germany, that was supported for a time by the West as an alternative to taking in Jewish people themselves. Hitler wrote a book in which he explained that the various races of the world were in a Darwinistic contest and that the master race would win by destroying the others. I don't understand why you're engaging in Nazi revisionism and pretending that they were at one point moderates who turned evil. They were very clear on their ideology. You're either unclear on the facts or are trying to make a parallel in really bad taste.
He also drew a lot of inspiration from the US.
Some Americans, including ones as prominent as Henry Ford, Helen Keller, and Alexander Graham Bell, began championing eugenics — a pseudoscientific ideology arguing that genetically "inferior" people should be sterilized to prevent offspring with undesirable traits.
The documentary quoted a writing from roughly 1914 attributed to former President Theodore Roosevelt: "I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding; and when the evil nature of these people is sufficiently flagrant, this should be done. Criminals should be sterilized and feeble-minded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them."
Many states also passed sterilization laws. Historians said the eugenics preached in the US gave Nazis a blueprint of sorts.
www.businessinsider.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
