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.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I completely disagree. The Allies absolutely 100% won World War 2, and thank goodness we did, or the globe would be divided between Germany and Japan with their supremacist philosophies.

Nobody wins wars because they never really end. The Treaty of Versailles in 1918 imposed such onerous terms on Germany that further conflict in Europe became inevitable. WWI also tipped Russia into a Bolshevik revolution which changed the course of history forever.

In May 1945 Germany was finished as a threat to world peace, but Russia and America, who never trusted each other, were left to continue the war by indirect means. The conflicts we are seeing in Ukraine and the Middle East are Cold War conflicts grown hot. And so on, ad infintum. It won’t ever end, until humanity collectively listens to the peace makers not the war mongers.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Every single day I get updates how many people have died in Gaza or Lebanon. Every day. Many articles in my feed.

I don't think I've ever gotten an article in my feed telling me of casualties in Ukraine. Certainly not multiple articles every day.

I know why *I* think there is this double standard, but I'm curious why you all think so.

And there are a lot more tragedies happening in the world that don't get reported, like the constant raping and killing in east Congo by Rwandan Militias for decades or the killing of Chinese muslims by the Chinese government.

For a time period the Ukraine issue was like the Palestinian issue, the hot topic around the world that everyone had to care about. The media was making a huge deal about it because it was a European issue. Third world countries don't matter.

Now the Palestian issue is the in thing.

I think what is happening is that the average joe wants to feel good by fighting for causes. Its like virtue signaling. It is to make themselves feel good rather than them caring about the victims. And that is why social media pushes it. And the casual viewer has adhd, they make a big deal out of Ukraine one day and then Palestine the next and then forget about both. Supporting a cause is a fad for entertainment. Social media personalities take sides depending on who their donor supports and what will gain the most views frok their fanbase. That is why people think that the Palestine and Israel issue only started on Oct 7 and don't know the history behind it. People are supporting causes out of gross ignorance which does more harm for the cause than good.

Also there is politics at play. Government push pro israel support because they profit from it and it serves religious propoganda. Other governments support palestine because they profit from it and want to topple the west. And these are distractions from internal issues.

Many a muslim I know talk about Israel and Palestine, but they don't care about issues in Africa, don't care about atrocities by the Taliban at best to the same extent, and don't care about their neighbours who suffer in one of the most inequal countries in the world.

Most of the supporters of these causes, IMO, and I would include myself in this ashamedly, support cause that are far out of reach because lip service is easy and can be said in passing. They dont require real commitment. Actually supporting causes close to home requires actual practical action which we don't have the guts to stand for. We would cower when students stand up for all our rights and die for these rights in an uprising like what happened in Soweto in 1976.

At least people speaking out against these causes spreads some sort of awareness, as awareness of Ukraine and Palestine are good. The world standing up for what hapoened in my country was essential for our freedom. Too bad we only care about popular causes. The bias, ignorance and hypocrisy is clear.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Every single day I get updates how many people have died in Gaza or Lebanon. Every day. Many articles in my feed.

I don't think I've ever gotten an article in my feed telling me of casualties in Ukraine. Certainly not multiple articles every day.

I know why *I* think there is this double standard, but I'm curious why you all think so.

Something interesting.

Download the Ground News app on your phone. It is design to show political bias regarding news stories in general. They put news articles by a topic side by side so you can sew botb sides of the argument and try and be unbiased.

 

[Tony B]

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

The links between Russia and Ukraine go back a thousand Years.

I wonder why you think this way.

Because its true.

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.

A very naive take on things, l recommend you read this excellent piece on CIA operations in the region since 1945.

Ukraine: The CIA’s 75-year-old Proxy - CovertAction Magazine

 

[Godobeyer]

Every single day I get updates how many people have died in Gaza or Lebanon. Every day. Many articles in my feed.

I don't think I've ever gotten an article in my feed telling me of casualties in Ukraine. Certainly not multiple articles every day.

I know why *I* think there is this double standard, but I'm curious why you all think so.

Gaza and Lebanon, show how the real face of the West politics.
Which claim humanity and democracy.

Ukraine/war not similar to Gaza war genocide.

Palestinians have only the sea to escape., Ukrainians had europe.

 

[Koldo]

The links between Russia and Ukraine go back a thousand Years.

Sure. Therefore?

Because its true.

Elaborate.

A very naive take on things, l recommend you read this excellent piece on CIA operations in the region since 1945.

Ukraine: The CIA’s 75-year-old Proxy - CovertAction Magazine

What specifically is naive about what I have stated? I am well aware that the US exert it's power over many countries, including Ukraine.

The difference is that when the USA lost power and influence it didn't resort to an invasion in Ukraine.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Nobody wins wars because they never really end.

Again, I disagree. We won WW2 and it absolutely ended. Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan didn't exist anymore, and haven't plagued the world since.

You're logic is along the lines of "Well, if I take an antibiotic for this infection, what good will it do, since I'll probably get another infection some time in the future?"

 

[crossfire]

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.

I wouldn't put a car accident on par with this type of collateral damage. I see this type of collateral damage more like the police shooting innocent civilians (with the innocents killed or injured outnumbering the actual criminals neuralized) when chasing down criminals, or even people getting caught between rival gang violence.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

collateral damage more like the police shooting innocent civilians

Oh baloney. Maybe you don't know what the word collateral damage means. It means that civilians are NOT the target.

 

[crossfire]

Oh baloney. Maybe you don't know what the word collateral damage means. It means that civilians are NOT the target.

Hence, all of the concern over all of the civilian deaths that you are seeing.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I wouldn't use the word conspiracy because it implies secrecy. I think antisemitism is very up front and in your face.

My friend,

A little off-topic but relevant nonetheless:

It’s good to remember that it is just as possible to be entirely anti-Netanyahu, without being an antisemite as it is possible to be:

• anti-Trump, without hating Americans
• anti-Putin, without hating Russians
• anti-HAMAS, without hating Palestinians

Humbly,
Hermit