Why the double standard?

[IndigoChild5559]

For the record, here's a dictionary definition.



As you can see, it doesn't have to be total extermination.

It doesn't have to be the total extermination, but that does have to be the desire.

For example, the destruction of Dresden was mind boggling. So many Germans were killed. Most estimates are around 25,000, although some are as high as 250,000. But although this was horrific, it was not genocide because there was no desire to kill off all Germans.

Another example. About 130,000 Japanese civilians died immediately from the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and if you include those who died later, the death toll is more like 200,000-250,000 by the end of 1945. But there was no intent to kill all Japanese, so as horrific as this was, it was not genocide.

When people start applying the word genocide to the significant number of civilians killed as collateral damage, it diminishes the meaning of the word, and is an insult to those who have been victims of actual genocide.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

As I've said many times, genocide is the conscious, deliberate attempt to eradicate every last many, woman, and child of an ethnic group. That's NOT happening.

I'm not really following your thread, but I was curious to what extent you understand the unconscious competition dynamics between groups - and if this can sometimes be either confused for conscious over-competition on the part of one group against another, or if it naturally crosses a line somewhere where it becomes de facto overcompetition, even if it is carried out in an 'unconscious' way

For example, take the natural conflict, perhaps wholly unintentional, between nomadic groups and groups that settle into private property. It can become a 'cultural norm' to settle an entire country with private property. However, at a certain point in time, an externality of that is that different nomadic groups start to cease to exist, in that country. But it wasn't technically a conscious effort on the part of those who ended their way of life, but was due more in part to the unconscious consumption of space, that the nomadic groups needed to hunt or herd animals etc.

 

[Tony B]

Although the US exerts considerable power over both Mexico and Canada, I don't think it comes anywhere close to the degree that Russia had over Ukraine. Although, if tested, I doubt the US wouldn't increase it by tenfold in a moment.

Ukraine was effectively part of Russia for a very long time, so not exactly comparable.

Just goes to show how much of a puppet Ukraine was.

Like Britain is to the US these days.

Ukraine's sovereignty to ally with any side be damned, right?

Like Cuba? Or any number of South American states?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I've said many times, genocide is the conscious, deliberate attempt to eradicate every last many, woman, and child of an ethnic group. That's NOT happening.

And accusing any group of genocide, including Jews, when it's not the case, IS bigotry.

But I'm sure you have drunk the Kool-Aid, and are incapable of hearing that.

Hair-splitting between genocide and ethnic cleansing again?

Also, "it isn't technically genocide because we're only massacring Palestinians in Gaza and not the Palestinian diaspora" is not the moral high ground you're making it out to be.

 

[crossfire]

As I've said many times, genocide is the conscious, deliberate attempt to eradicate every last many, woman, and child of an ethnic group. That's NOT happening.

And accusing any group of genocide, including Jews, when it's not the case, IS bigotry.

But I'm sure you have drunk the Kool-Aid, and are incapable of hearing that.

If you want to call it collateral damage instead of genocide, I'm good with that. Either way, they are dead. Collateral damage is also generally frowned upon.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If you want to call it collateral damage instead of genocide, I'm good with that. Either way, they are dead. Collateral damage is also generally frowned upon.

It should be minimized. I just don't put the two on the same level, nor do I want the vocabulary to be interchangeable.

I do think it makes a difference. If my child is killed in a car accident, I will cry my eyes out and not be the same again. But I'd much rather that than have my child murdered.

Okay, time to light shabbos candles. I'll see you later.

 

[Koldo]

Ukraine was effectively part of Russia for a very long time, so not exactly comparable.

What are you calling Russia exactly? Ukraine has never been part of the Russian Federation.

Like Britain is to the US these days.

I wonder why you think this way.

Like Cuba? Or any number of South American states?

I am a brazilian. Brazil is a South American country, one of BRIC's founding countries and only officially regarded as a major non-nato ally recently (2019) because one of our presidents pretty much begged for it. As far as exports go, China is a much more important partner to Brazil than the USA.

It is important to remember that what started this whole conflict was Ukraine deciding to become closer to the EU, but not being allowed to. Had the USA treated Brazil the same way that Russia treated Ukraine, I would be living in the ruins of my nation.

 

[Alien826]

It doesn't have to be the total extermination, but that does have to be the desire.

That's the first two meanings from the dictionary definition I quoted. The third was

The systematic killing of substantial numbers of people on the basis of ethnicity, religion, political opinion, social status, or other particularity.

which does not have that requirement.

For example, the destruction of Dresden was mind boggling. So many Germans were killed. Most estimates are around 25,000, although some are as high as 250,000. But although this was horrific, it was not genocide because there was no desire to kill off all Germans.

Another example. About 130,000 Japanese civilians died immediately from the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and if you include those who died later, the death toll is more like 200,000-250,000 by the end of 1945. But there was no intent to kill all Japanese, so as horrific as this was, it was not genocide.

When people start applying the word genocide to the significant number of civilians killed as collateral damage, it diminishes the meaning of the word, and is an insult to those who have been victims of actual genocide.

That said, I wouldn't call what is happening in Gaza genocide, so we agree to that extent. What I do see from extreme right wing Israelis is an attempt to make all of Biblical Judea, if I'm using the right word, Jewish. I don't think they want to see all Palestinians dead. Just not there.

 

[Koldo]

It should be minimized. I just don't put the two on the same level, nor do I want the vocabulary to be interchangeable.

I do think it makes a difference. If my child is killed in a car accident, I will cry my eyes out and not be the same again. But I'd much rather that than have my child murdered.

Okay, time to light shabbos candles. I'll see you later.

There isn't a lot of difference between the killing of loved ones by someone that wanted them dead and the killing done by someone that simply didn't care if the action would lead to their deaths though.