| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
dyhb
United States657 Posts
On August 29 2026 03:18 WombaT wrote: Because people can’t say “it’s not grand” without the compulsion to say “it’s genocide,” apparently. I hate to break it to you about war, but they are generally not “totally grand.”Nah it’s just totally grand to kill tens of thousands of civilians, nothing to see here… | ||
Nebuchad
Switzerland12511 Posts
On August 29 2026 03:44 dyhb wrote: Because people can’t say “it’s not grand” without the compulsion to say “it’s genocide,” apparently. I hate to break it to you about war, but they are generally not “totally grand.” Glad we were able to confirm in this post that you're denying the idea that it's genocide in general, and not specifically to criticize Jankisa's ukrainian analogy. So, with that in mind, any opinion on why the vast majority of genocide scholars and a bunch of human rights organizations and United Nations representatives agree with WombaT and not you? | ||
|
dyhb
United States657 Posts
On August 29 2026 05:49 Nebuchad wrote: What survey or analysis are you referring to? I’ve seen specific cases that appear to be motivated by bias and activism. For instance, the divorce in Amnesty International’s Israel chapter, and altering the definition of genocide among some groups. There’s longer articles of criticism if you’re interested. Glad we were able to confirm in this post that you're denying the idea that it's genocide in general, and not specifically to criticize Jankisa's ukrainian analogy. So, with that in mind, any opinion on why the vast majority of genocide scholars and a bunch of human rights organizations and United Nations representatives agree with WombaT and not you? | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12511 Posts
On August 29 2026 06:22 dyhb wrote: What survey or analysis are you referring to? I’ve seen specific cases that appear to be motivated by bias and activism. For instance, the divorce in Amnesty International’s Israel chapter, and altering the definition of genocide among some groups. There’s longer articles of criticism if you’re interested. I'm refering to a site called google.com where I prompt searches like "opinion of genocide scholars on Gaza" and I get a pretty clear picture of where those opinions lean in return. Here are some examples: https://twailr.com/public-statement-scholars-warn-of-potential-genocide-in-gaza/ https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cde3eyzdr63o https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/top-genocide-scholars-unanimous-israel-committing-genocide-gaza-investigation-finds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_and_legal_responses_to_the_Gaza_genocide What are you refering to? | ||
|
dyhb
United States657 Posts
On August 29 2026 07:13 Nebuchad wrote: I won’t take the nature of what Google displays to you as a good structure for debate. If you refer to something like the results specifying the IAGS study, then count me sympathetic to the ~70% that didn’t vote. I'm refering to a site called google.com where I prompt searches like "opinion of genocide scholars on Gaza" and I get a pretty clear picture of where those opinions lean in return. Here are some examples: https://twailr.com/public-statement-scholars-warn-of-potential-genocide-in-gaza/ https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cde3eyzdr63o https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/top-genocide-scholars-unanimous-israel-committing-genocide-gaza-investigation-finds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_and_legal_responses_to_the_Gaza_genocide What are you refering to? I was reading the nature of the claims when this news story surfaced and resurfaced in 2023-2025. Amnesty International altered its definition to pursue the assignment. Scholarly surveys had a lack of original research. The activist anti-Israel groups leveled claims that were simply cited and repeated. Reliance on poor sources results in poor value. Those are what popped up to me when I examined the why and how of various surveys (as well as aforementioned poor participation.) I don’t think the research is sufficiently developed either to the claim, or to the reason behind the poor state of academic treatment of the subject. Maybe in 5-10 years I’ll know more beyond the obvious bias and activism and rush to judgment. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12511 Posts
On August 29 2026 08:49 dyhb wrote: I won’t take the nature of what Google displays to you as a good structure for debate. If you refer to something like the results specifying the IAGS study, then count me sympathetic to the ~70% that didn’t vote. I was reading the nature of the claims when this news story surfaced and resurfaced in 2023-2025. Amnesty International altered its definition to pursue the assignment. Scholarly surveys had a lack of original research. The activist anti-Israel groups leveled claims that were simply cited and repeated. Reliance on poor sources results in poor value. Those are what popped up to me when I examined the why and how of various surveys (as well as aforementioned poor participation.) I don’t think the research is sufficiently developed either to the claim, or to the reason behind the poor state of academic treatment of the subject. Maybe in 5-10 years I’ll know more beyond the obvious bias and activism and rush to judgment. Is there something somewhere that leads you to believe that most genocide scholars do not think it's genocide? And if yes, why is that thing in your mind a stronger agregate, and a better structure for debate on the specific question of which way the genocide scholars lean, than Google (and the links you get from Google) is? | ||
|
dyhb
United States657 Posts
On August 29 2026 09:00 Nebuchad wrote: Let’s back up a bit. Have you read and understood my criticism of low response rate, missing original research, and over-reliance on claims made by activist organizations? I think the more important aspect is to look at the claims evidence and reasoning, rather than reduce it to some dumb aggregate poll. It’s not like they polled responses on the strength of the available evidence, it was a simple up-down on a proposition. Low response rates skew towards the strongly opinionated, and especially towards the positive statement polled instead of a proper contrasting statement. Is there something somewhere that leads you to believe that most genocide scholars do not think it's genocide? And if yes, why is that thing in your mind a stronger agregate, and a better structure for debate on the specific question of which way the genocide scholars lean, than Google (and the links you get from Google) is? | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12511 Posts
On August 29 2026 09:26 dyhb wrote: Let’s back up a bit. Have you read and understood my criticism of low response rate, missing original research, and over-reliance on claims made by activist organizations? I think the more important aspect is to look at the claims evidence and reasoning, rather than reduce it to some dumb aggregate poll. It’s not like they polled responses on the strength of the available evidence, it was a simple up-down on a proposition. Low response rates skew towards the strongly opinionated, and especially towards the positive statement polled instead of a proper contrasting statement. I'm having trouble parsing your argument. Do you believe that it is wrong to state that the majority of genocide scholars think it is a genocide, or do you believe that the statement is correct, but the genocide scholars are wrong because unlike you their mind is tainted by activism. Those two claims are clashing with each other, and it gives the impression that you want to argue against what I said no matter which logic you have to use, which to me is a sign of dishonest tactics. | ||
|
dyhb
United States657 Posts
On August 29 2026 09:51 Nebuchad wrote: I think it’s too early to seek a consensus on strength of evidence and the added value of an academic on genocide sociology and law. The quality of existing polling (within academics) and research (academics prior to quality research has its own issues) is too poor. Yes, it’s a very nuanced opinion and maybe you’ve heard absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'm having trouble parsing your argument. Do you believe that it is wrong to state that the majority of genocide scholars think it is a genocide, or do you believe that the statement is correct, but the genocide scholars are wrong because unlike you their mind is tainted by activism. Those two claims are clashing with each other, and it gives the impression that you want to argue against what I said no matter which logic you have to use, which to me is a sign of dishonest tactics. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
GSL
AI Arena Tournament
Replay Cast
WardiTV Weekly
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
GSL
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
