Let's be charitable. That's not what they're saying.
They're saying it doesn't fit the murder everybody definition of genocide, which is a fair position. However, Genocide is more broadly defined by the UN, and ethnically cleansing a region, is a part of an overall genocide.
Update: I should not have been charitable...
Well that's the UN's fault for wording ethnic cleansing as a form of genocide, which in reality it can be a part of.
But in the real world it's just liars first lobbying to broaden a written definition to later abuse it.
What language would you use to describe removing an ethnicity from an area, so that it may be ethnically pure for a different ethnicity?
The people who wrote and vote for the UN convention against genocide, includes Israel.
So we're measuring them by their own metric, using their own legislation, which they wrote and voted for. Seems fair.
I suggest not copying Israel's stupid definitions for anything
Genocide: murdering everyone of a certain ethnicity
Ethnic cleansing: removing everyone of a certain ethnicity from an area
Of course both can go hand in hand. Threatening murder, often by setting some prolific examples, is a way to convince people to leave.
There's a difference between WW2 nazi's checking the Spanish border making sure jews trying to escape are sent back to the extermination camps, and zionist settlers cutting down orchards and shooting a few farmers to scare them off.
What's happening in the West Bank is extremely deplorable but it's no different from what's happening in, for example, Western Sahara or Nagorno Kharabag
I'm sorry you have a fight with the English language, but this term is well defined. It is defined in a legal sense, by both people who have suffered from genocide, and people who want to prevent genocide. Including the government of Israel which is committing a genocide, by their own definition, against the people of Palestine.
If you want to argue that English should be different, Wikipedia talks, and wikitionary talk pages are good places to do it. You could also reach out to your local State department, and petition them to get the definition of genocide changed.
We here on Lemmy cannot resolve your dispute with the English language, sorry
I already know people like to broaden the term (and ignore the - cide) to serve their own needs. But alas, I'm here to educate, not follow.
Please educate the 1948 UN delegates.
Your fight is with the dictionary, not with me
Both the dictionary and the UN already agree with me
noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group.
It's funny but everything here is stuff Israel already did. Like in my head I'm saying, "check" and moving to the next one.
Please see the genocide scholar article linked elsewhere in this discussion for the real argument as to why the Israeli government actions constitute genocide
Ethnic cleansing is component of genocide
Genocide: murdering everyone of a certain ethnicity
Nope, "Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people in whole or in part", which is the case with Israel.
Ethnic cleansing: removing everyone of a certain ethnicity from an area
Nope, nothing says you have to displace everyone, just that you attempt it and have shown on numerous occasions that you intend to do it (which is the case with Israel)
You can say whatever you want, but making up new definitions (or maybe "oversimplified" definitions) of a thing is not a good way to have a discussion.
Go apply to the UN. They have some vacancies now that Israel bombed so many UN workers in their home. I'm sure they will appreciate all your thoughtful commentary!
Are you a fucking retard?
No need for the ableist slur. There are much better, creative, and entertaining ways to insult people who act in bad faith and have the self-awareness of a modern LLM.
is forcing people to go anywhere else actually "ethnically cleansing" though? to me, that terminology is best described as rounding everyone of a certain ethnic background up, shooting them all, burying the bodies, and then moving on to the next group.
this isnt that.
If you want an area of land with a single ethnicity, to clean the area so it is pure for that ethnicity, that is a form of ethnic cleansing.
If you take a city and say all people who are not genetically x, or believe in religion y, must leave. That is a form of ethnic cleansing, you are cleaning the area for a specific ethnicity.
The cleansing doesn't have to involve death, could just involve displacement, or even The ability to have children.
Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, and religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous.
eh... using a definition that broad would mean that most asian countries are guilty of ethnic cleansing. a lot of african countries would qualify too, as would many european nations (other than, you know, germany).
The word has a very clear meaning. I'm sorry you don't like that definition, but the reason we have dictionaries is so that we can agree on definitions.
How would you describe ethnically purifying an area?
Yes, ethnic cleansing is very common in human history... You're right. Lots of countries are guilty of it. Doesn't make it any less bad just common
if it's so common that literally every country in recorded history is guilty of it (and they are if the accepted definition is so broad) then it's just another part of governance - unworthy of discussion even.
Ethnic cleansing is unworthy of discussion, because every country has participated in it in some point in their history?
So from that standpoint, you're happy to get ethnically cleansed, right? It shouldn't be worth discussion, if a government agent wants to hand over your area to a different ethnicity. You wouldn't have anything to say about that right? Your family would be cool with it too right?
And if the people who have been ethnically cleansed, try to ethnically cleanse their oppressors, that's not newsworthy either right? So there shouldn't have been any news reporting of hamas's ethnic cleansing attempts? Right? It's not newsworthy, why are we even talking about it...
Countries also execute people, we still talk about murder.
i love getting cleansed - so much so that I do it every morning (irish spring is the best soap ever). seriously though - no one here participating in this discussion/argument/whatever has ever been in even the remotest danger of being ethnically cleansed. what we say doesnt matter. you and I, any anyone who views these comments now or in years to come, we dont make policy. our opinion is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
you say "oh no, it's bad!". ok, great. it's good to have a position. my position is that our positions dont matter. the news doesnt matter. you think policy makers actually care what nonsense the journalists say? queue my endlessly contagious derisive laughter.
Holy hypocrisy, Batman! You can't just say that none of our opinions matter after spending several paragraphs over several comments sharing your own objectively wrong take. Not without showing everyone what a condescending idiot you are, at least 🤷
They got backed into a logical corner, that they couldn't figure out how to defend, so they went into it doesn't matter anyway rather than agree with me.
Honestly, I take it as a compliment. It means they are thinking logically, they just don't have the personal fortitude to admit it publicly but that will come with time.
you know, what I find really interesting is that's there's basically no discussion on the news subs until someone espouses a comment that's basically against the policy that everyone appears to blindly abide by - but then an absolute mass of people chime in about how the offending comment is wrong, or how they're a traitor for not being willing to toe the party line, or are just flat out insulting.
it's really kind of hilarious - and it indicates that lemmy really isnt the next big thing, not like reddit was or digg before it. the decentralized nature just works against it. the expected response is that "you just need to find the right community" - but it really seems that a lot of people on the news subs just want to argue. the politics subs are even worse - they're basically echo chambers for the small minded, and they're proud of it.
find the right community -> start the right community
Otherwise, I agree. Too much group think, not enough open and thoughtful debate.
no real debate at all, just... arguing, then insults fly when they discover arguing isnt working. it's a sad state of affairs.
How do you wake up in the morning? If nothing you do matters. How do you continue to go on in this life?
And just because you believe nothing you do matters, doesnt mean it applies to other people.
Other people matter, I matter.. I'm even going to go out on a limb and say you matter. You live, you interact with people, you're part of a society, there's somebody out there who would be unhappy when you die. You matter. You matter in your own little corner of the world, and your attitudes and your interactions impact the people around you. You matter.
So I'm going to continue to tell people
genocide is bad
ethnic cleansing is bad
killing people is bad
I'm going to tell everybody, and I'm going to fight with anybody who disagrees, because it matters.
Update: One more point about how small the world is, 6° of separation is a real thing, everyone is within six degrees of every other person on this planet. Meaning if you actually talk to your social networks, you will find people who have suffered horrible injustices that are directly related to you.
Any one of us could hop on an airplane right now, and end up in part of the world that is suffering terribly within a few hours.
We can actively work together, to make the world better, or we can work together to make the world worse, or we can sit idly by will other people make the world worse. I know which one of these options I prefer.
hey man if what you need to do to get you through your day is to spout off "things are bad" like some off-kilter street preacher, then knock yourself out. dont let little old me and logical argument stop you. you do you - you know how to do it best! be the best you that you can be!
biological imperatives dictate that I get up in the morning, I perform my ablutions, I consume a tasty caffeinated beverage and I go off to my job like a fine, upstanding, tax-paying, obedient citizen of this great nation because I am a proud member of it. but you're right, nothing I do matters. all I strive to be, all I work towards, it's this black pit of woe and despair. but... perhaps what we do matters! maybe! I mean, not a fucking chance, but maybe I'm wrong! maybe there's a shining light and the end of this desolate existence! but i doubt it.
oh yeah, you're totally right about that 6 degrees of separation thing - the world we live in is getting smaller each and every day. as the world condenses into the singularity (as foretold) I have indeed found myself interacting with people that have different experiences. like, we brought in a new guy at work last year - he's from Afghanistan, he worked against his people and his nation to get in good with the Americans and when they left so did he. his insights into what's going on over there have been really interesting. but nothing that he does is going to change what's happening to his extended family back in the old country. theres going to be famine there - perhaps not this year but very, very soon. and there's nothing anyone can do to prevent it. nothing really matters.
is genocide bad? yeah. does it matter if you tell people that? not really
is ethnic cleansing bad? most folks would say yes. does it matter much? nope
is it bad to kill others? even if you've been granted absolution by your government/religious faith/community leaders? even if the voices in your head require it? maybe. there's not a real, concrete answer for that one. the reality is that it depends on the situation. sometimes it's perfectly acceptable to kill others - shit, you might even get a medal and raise for it if you're lucky!
The only issue I have with your last statement is your arguments are not logically consistent.
A lot of your responses have been emotional, appealing to feelings, rather than a cohesive interconnected philosophical framework that's internally consistent. And that's fine, just don't assume I'm responding in the same way.
yep, I'm an aspiring politician - or perhaps faith leader. it's basically the same thing - lying to the proles. one needs to learn to appeal to the common man/woman/whatever. the need to find meaning of existence. the need to know what we do matters - that the individualmatters. the need to be significant, or be seen as contributing to that significance - it's accumulation of social credit. an appeal to emotion - and yes, to feelings. feelings existed before language - and language existed before religion, but only just. tapping into that power is the only magic that truly exists
no, it's quite all right - you respond how you respond. how you've been shaped to respond ;)
Christ, you've used a whole lot of words to say a bunch of nothing throughout this whole comment chain. This is the kind of high school nihilism that used to spew out 4chan.
Slavery has been an institution in almost all if not all contries at some point. That doesn't make it any less horrible, that other atrocities are also common doesn't make them less atrocious either.
it's interesting to note that slavery was still a thing in some countries even up until the 1960s. in fact, the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam outlawed slavery in 1990 - 33 years ago. how progressive! how totally hip and with-the-times!
and this discussion is quibbling about a little thing like ethnic cleansing. pish posh!
Slavery is still a thing today. Slavery is still a thing in the United States even, compelling labor for prisoners is totally legal. And that's a form of slavery
lol that's not slavery. prisoners on work detail get paid. slaves dont get paid. ergo, prisoners are not slaves.
Did you really do the Rick and Morty "it's slavery, with extra steps"? Kudos
I’m really surprised that you put forth so much effort for this idiotchan. No matter how many times you school them, they just keep spouting dumb shit. I admire your patience.
Even if they're just trolling, there's people out there who genuinely believe these things, so it's worthwhile to put the effort in to have the public debate.
Plus arguing with people on Lemmy is a good way to keep my rhetoric skills in practice
not trolling, trying to engage in a discussion. I could easily say "no, you're wrong" & then move onto the next thing, whatever it may be. I could be insulting, as many here default to, but I'm better than that - and so are you. or maybe not! difficult to tell really. eh, I'm probably wrong about you.
most asian countries are guilty of ethnic cleansing
Yes, they are/have been. Almost all countries have committed horrible atrocities in the past or present. That doesn't make this not ethnic cleansing or not atrocious.
See, you're not playing the game by the rules certain groups are playing.
you're right. I'm not. you gotta buck the trend, for novelty's sake if nothing else - it keeps the squares on their toes. I find it sad that you got downvoted (not not voting means anything on this platform) for disagreeing with the herd mentality, so I didja a solid and poked the updoot button.
was a fun discussion, for a little while. it seems to have devolved into the insulting phase now. always does. it's like... we (humanity) just cant rise above our base impulses. if someone refuses to listen, they start getting insulted - like, subconsciously some people just cant accept that their opinion is literally meaningless. it's just... weird.
Israel wants to relocate a ethnic people. Certain group like to call that genocide because it sounds worse. Genocide actually means killing off a ethnic group. Population transfer is what Israel wants to do.
Population transfer is not equal to ethic or tribal killing. Someone at the UN needs to learn latin.
Ethnic cleansing is a component of genocide.
I think the politicians and diplomats who got together in 1948 were cognizant of that.
Consider
You ethnically cleanse a population, they resist, fighting breaks out. The ethnic cleansing moves into a pogrom, repeat... Genocide.
Yes, but their intentions are a forced migration or population transfer. Saying cleaning or genocide means the wholesale murder of the population. So you're using loaded language which is weakening your argument.
Israel has made it clear they no longer welcome Palestinians along their border. They have been working with neighbors to accept them and essentially the two state option is no longer an option. That isn't ethnic cleansing or genocide, that is a population transfer.
Now had both sides worked together and forged a diplomatic relationship the two state option would have been successful, but that didn't occur. Both sides were continually hostile to one another. Now the Palestinian people are going to be relocated and will once again be stateless.
Forced relocation of the population, is ethnic cleansing by definition.
I'm using dictionary definitions, internationally agreed definitions, I'm using the words as their intended in international law and in common usage. I believe that strengthens my argument
That's loaded language which is a falsification what is actually occurring.
We all agree that Israel wants to relocate the Palestinian people outside of their border. It's agreed that Israel has no intention of murdering or enslaving the population. That's not cleansing, that's a forced migration or population transfer.
We all know why you want to use loaded language because it generates a image in the minds of low information people of murder and enslavement.
It's literally the definition of the phrase.
Ethnically cleansing an area, is ensuring an ethnicity is removed, or cleansed from the area.
I'm sorry you disagree with the dictionary, reality must be really difficult to deal with. But we have to deal with the reality we're presented with, and not the reality we would like
I did not agree with you on either of those statements.
You haven't brought it up, but I might as well head off the next issue, it is a genocide:
curiously enough, bolding your words doesnt make them true. funny, innit?
They were bolded because i was using the same rhetorical device the other commenter was using right back at them, telling your speaking partner that they agreed to something they haven't agreed to
I dunno, I went back and read through the comments again to see if I had misinterpreted it and it really just seems like you two are splitting hairs.
No, it is not tribal murder. Genocide means racial or tribal murder. Use the correct language.
I can only use the definitions in the dictionary, in the Wikipedia, and the UN. I'm not going to go with your off-the-cuff rejection of the dictionary.
I’m not going to go with your off-the-cuff rejection of the dictionary.
Latin, a language used for thousands of years is far from off-the-cuff.
Let's be charitable. That's not what they're saying.
They're saying it doesn't fit the murder everybody definition of genocide, which is a fair position. However, Genocide is more broadly defined by the UN, and ethnically cleansing a region, is a part of an overall genocide.
Update: I should not have been charitable...
Well that's the UN's fault for wording ethnic cleansing as a form of genocide, which in reality it can be a part of.
But in the real world it's just liars first lobbying to broaden a written definition to later abuse it.
What language would you use to describe removing an ethnicity from an area, so that it may be ethnically pure for a different ethnicity?
Ethnic purification?
Get ready for it...
Drumroll
"Ethnic Cleansing"
Applause
I misunderstood your previous argument.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Genocide_Convention
The people who wrote and vote for the UN convention against genocide, includes Israel.
So we're measuring them by their own metric, using their own legislation, which they wrote and voted for. Seems fair.
I suggest not copying Israel's stupid definitions for anything
Genocide: murdering everyone of a certain ethnicity
Ethnic cleansing: removing everyone of a certain ethnicity from an area
Of course both can go hand in hand. Threatening murder, often by setting some prolific examples, is a way to convince people to leave.
There's a difference between WW2 nazi's checking the Spanish border making sure jews trying to escape are sent back to the extermination camps, and zionist settlers cutting down orchards and shooting a few farmers to scare them off.
What's happening in the West Bank is extremely deplorable but it's no different from what's happening in, for example, Western Sahara or Nagorno Kharabag
Wikipedia Wikipedia 2 UN Human rights watch Wiktionary
I'm sorry you have a fight with the English language, but this term is well defined. It is defined in a legal sense, by both people who have suffered from genocide, and people who want to prevent genocide. Including the government of Israel which is committing a genocide, by their own definition, against the people of Palestine.
If you want to argue that English should be different, Wikipedia talks, and wikitionary talk pages are good places to do it. You could also reach out to your local State department, and petition them to get the definition of genocide changed.
We here on Lemmy cannot resolve your dispute with the English language, sorry
I already know people like to broaden the term (and ignore the - cide) to serve their own needs. But alas, I'm here to educate, not follow.
Please educate the 1948 UN delegates.
Your fight is with the dictionary, not with me
Both the dictionary and the UN already agree with me
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/genocide
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
It's funny but everything here is stuff Israel already did. Like in my head I'm saying, "check" and moving to the next one.
Please see the genocide scholar article linked elsewhere in this discussion for the real argument as to why the Israeli government actions constitute genocide
Ethnic cleansing is component of genocide
Nope, "Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people in whole or in part", which is the case with Israel.
Nope, nothing says you have to displace everyone, just that you attempt it and have shown on numerous occasions that you intend to do it (which is the case with Israel)
You can say whatever you want, but making up new definitions (or maybe "oversimplified" definitions) of a thing is not a good way to have a discussion.
Go apply to the UN. They have some vacancies now that Israel bombed so many UN workers in their home. I'm sure they will appreciate all your thoughtful commentary!
Are you a fucking retard?
No need for the ableist slur. There are much better, creative, and entertaining ways to insult people who act in bad faith and have the self-awareness of a modern LLM.
is forcing people to go anywhere else actually "ethnically cleansing" though? to me, that terminology is best described as rounding everyone of a certain ethnic background up, shooting them all, burying the bodies, and then moving on to the next group.
this isnt that.
If you want an area of land with a single ethnicity, to clean the area so it is pure for that ethnicity, that is a form of ethnic cleansing.
If you take a city and say all people who are not genetically x, or believe in religion y, must leave. That is a form of ethnic cleansing, you are cleaning the area for a specific ethnicity.
The cleansing doesn't have to involve death, could just involve displacement, or even The ability to have children.
Ethnic cleansing wikipedia
Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, and religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous.
eh... using a definition that broad would mean that most asian countries are guilty of ethnic cleansing. a lot of african countries would qualify too, as would many european nations (other than, you know, germany).
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/ethnic_cleansing
The word has a very clear meaning. I'm sorry you don't like that definition, but the reason we have dictionaries is so that we can agree on definitions.
How would you describe ethnically purifying an area?
Yes, ethnic cleansing is very common in human history... You're right. Lots of countries are guilty of it. Doesn't make it any less bad just common
if it's so common that literally every country in recorded history is guilty of it (and they are if the accepted definition is so broad) then it's just another part of governance - unworthy of discussion even.
Ethnic cleansing is unworthy of discussion, because every country has participated in it in some point in their history?
So from that standpoint, you're happy to get ethnically cleansed, right? It shouldn't be worth discussion, if a government agent wants to hand over your area to a different ethnicity. You wouldn't have anything to say about that right? Your family would be cool with it too right?
And if the people who have been ethnically cleansed, try to ethnically cleanse their oppressors, that's not newsworthy either right? So there shouldn't have been any news reporting of hamas's ethnic cleansing attempts? Right? It's not newsworthy, why are we even talking about it...
Countries also execute people, we still talk about murder.
i love getting cleansed - so much so that I do it every morning (irish spring is the best soap ever). seriously though - no one here participating in this discussion/argument/whatever has ever been in even the remotest danger of being ethnically cleansed. what we say doesnt matter. you and I, any anyone who views these comments now or in years to come, we dont make policy. our opinion is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
you say "oh no, it's bad!". ok, great. it's good to have a position. my position is that our positions dont matter. the news doesnt matter. you think policy makers actually care what nonsense the journalists say? queue my endlessly contagious derisive laughter.
Holy hypocrisy, Batman! You can't just say that none of our opinions matter after spending several paragraphs over several comments sharing your own objectively wrong take. Not without showing everyone what a condescending idiot you are, at least 🤷
They got backed into a logical corner, that they couldn't figure out how to defend, so they went into it doesn't matter anyway rather than agree with me.
Honestly, I take it as a compliment. It means they are thinking logically, they just don't have the personal fortitude to admit it publicly but that will come with time.
you know, what I find really interesting is that's there's basically no discussion on the news subs until someone espouses a comment that's basically against the policy that everyone appears to blindly abide by - but then an absolute mass of people chime in about how the offending comment is wrong, or how they're a traitor for not being willing to toe the party line, or are just flat out insulting.
it's really kind of hilarious - and it indicates that lemmy really isnt the next big thing, not like reddit was or digg before it. the decentralized nature just works against it. the expected response is that "you just need to find the right community" - but it really seems that a lot of people on the news subs just want to argue. the politics subs are even worse - they're basically echo chambers for the small minded, and they're proud of it.
find the right community -> start the right community
Otherwise, I agree. Too much group think, not enough open and thoughtful debate.
no real debate at all, just... arguing, then insults fly when they discover arguing isnt working. it's a sad state of affairs.
How do you wake up in the morning? If nothing you do matters. How do you continue to go on in this life?
And just because you believe nothing you do matters, doesnt mean it applies to other people.
Other people matter, I matter.. I'm even going to go out on a limb and say you matter. You live, you interact with people, you're part of a society, there's somebody out there who would be unhappy when you die. You matter. You matter in your own little corner of the world, and your attitudes and your interactions impact the people around you. You matter.
So I'm going to continue to tell people
I'm going to tell everybody, and I'm going to fight with anybody who disagrees, because it matters.
Update: One more point about how small the world is, 6° of separation is a real thing, everyone is within six degrees of every other person on this planet. Meaning if you actually talk to your social networks, you will find people who have suffered horrible injustices that are directly related to you.
Any one of us could hop on an airplane right now, and end up in part of the world that is suffering terribly within a few hours.
We can actively work together, to make the world better, or we can work together to make the world worse, or we can sit idly by will other people make the world worse. I know which one of these options I prefer.
hey man if what you need to do to get you through your day is to spout off "things are bad" like some off-kilter street preacher, then knock yourself out. dont let little old me and logical argument stop you. you do you - you know how to do it best! be the best you that you can be!
biological imperatives dictate that I get up in the morning, I perform my ablutions, I consume a tasty caffeinated beverage and I go off to my job like a fine, upstanding, tax-paying, obedient citizen of this great nation because I am a proud member of it. but you're right, nothing I do matters. all I strive to be, all I work towards, it's this black pit of woe and despair. but... perhaps what we do matters! maybe! I mean, not a fucking chance, but maybe I'm wrong! maybe there's a shining light and the end of this desolate existence! but i doubt it.
oh yeah, you're totally right about that 6 degrees of separation thing - the world we live in is getting smaller each and every day. as the world condenses into the singularity (as foretold) I have indeed found myself interacting with people that have different experiences. like, we brought in a new guy at work last year - he's from Afghanistan, he worked against his people and his nation to get in good with the Americans and when they left so did he. his insights into what's going on over there have been really interesting. but nothing that he does is going to change what's happening to his extended family back in the old country. theres going to be famine there - perhaps not this year but very, very soon. and there's nothing anyone can do to prevent it. nothing really matters.
is genocide bad? yeah. does it matter if you tell people that? not really
is ethnic cleansing bad? most folks would say yes. does it matter much? nope
is it bad to kill others? even if you've been granted absolution by your government/religious faith/community leaders? even if the voices in your head require it? maybe. there's not a real, concrete answer for that one. the reality is that it depends on the situation. sometimes it's perfectly acceptable to kill others - shit, you might even get a medal and raise for it if you're lucky!
The only issue I have with your last statement is your arguments are not logically consistent.
A lot of your responses have been emotional, appealing to feelings, rather than a cohesive interconnected philosophical framework that's internally consistent. And that's fine, just don't assume I'm responding in the same way.
yep, I'm an aspiring politician - or perhaps faith leader. it's basically the same thing - lying to the proles. one needs to learn to appeal to the common man/woman/whatever. the need to find meaning of existence. the need to know what we do matters - that the individual matters. the need to be significant, or be seen as contributing to that significance - it's accumulation of social credit. an appeal to emotion - and yes, to feelings. feelings existed before language - and language existed before religion, but only just. tapping into that power is the only magic that truly exists
no, it's quite all right - you respond how you respond. how you've been shaped to respond ;)
Christ, you've used a whole lot of words to say a bunch of nothing throughout this whole comment chain. This is the kind of high school nihilism that used to spew out 4chan.
Slavery has been an institution in almost all if not all contries at some point. That doesn't make it any less horrible, that other atrocities are also common doesn't make them less atrocious either.
it's interesting to note that slavery was still a thing in some countries even up until the 1960s. in fact, the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam outlawed slavery in 1990 - 33 years ago. how progressive! how totally hip and with-the-times!
and this discussion is quibbling about a little thing like ethnic cleansing. pish posh!
Slavery is still a thing today. Slavery is still a thing in the United States even, compelling labor for prisoners is totally legal. And that's a form of slavery
lol that's not slavery. prisoners on work detail get paid. slaves dont get paid. ergo, prisoners are not slaves.
Did you really do the Rick and Morty "it's slavery, with extra steps"? Kudos
Prisoners with Jobs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century
I'm just going to leave this right here
I’m really surprised that you put forth so much effort for this idiotchan. No matter how many times you school them, they just keep spouting dumb shit. I admire your patience.
Even if they're just trolling, there's people out there who genuinely believe these things, so it's worthwhile to put the effort in to have the public debate.
Plus arguing with people on Lemmy is a good way to keep my rhetoric skills in practice
notice me senpai!
not trolling, trying to engage in a discussion. I could easily say "no, you're wrong" & then move onto the next thing, whatever it may be. I could be insulting, as many here default to, but I'm better than that - and so are you. or maybe not! difficult to tell really. eh, I'm probably wrong about you.
Yes, they are/have been. Almost all countries have committed horrible atrocities in the past or present. That doesn't make this not ethnic cleansing or not atrocious.
See, you're not playing the game by the rules certain groups are playing.
you're right. I'm not. you gotta buck the trend, for novelty's sake if nothing else - it keeps the squares on their toes. I find it sad that you got downvoted (not not voting means anything on this platform) for disagreeing with the herd mentality, so I didja a solid and poked the updoot button.
was a fun discussion, for a little while. it seems to have devolved into the insulting phase now. always does. it's like... we (humanity) just cant rise above our base impulses. if someone refuses to listen, they start getting insulted - like, subconsciously some people just cant accept that their opinion is literally meaningless. it's just... weird.
anyway, toodles!
Israel wants to relocate a ethnic people. Certain group like to call that genocide because it sounds worse. Genocide actually means killing off a ethnic group. Population transfer is what Israel wants to do.
Latin: genos (race or tribe) and cide (killing).
So about that....
Wikipedia Wikipedia 2 UN Human rights watch Wiktionary
Population transfer is not equal to ethic or tribal killing. Someone at the UN needs to learn latin.
Ethnic cleansing is a component of genocide.
I think the politicians and diplomats who got together in 1948 were cognizant of that.
Consider
You ethnically cleanse a population, they resist, fighting breaks out. The ethnic cleansing moves into a pogrom, repeat... Genocide.
Yes, but their intentions are a forced migration or population transfer. Saying cleaning or genocide means the wholesale murder of the population. So you're using loaded language which is weakening your argument.
Israel has made it clear they no longer welcome Palestinians along their border. They have been working with neighbors to accept them and essentially the two state option is no longer an option. That isn't ethnic cleansing or genocide, that is a population transfer.
Now had both sides worked together and forged a diplomatic relationship the two state option would have been successful, but that didn't occur. Both sides were continually hostile to one another. Now the Palestinian people are going to be relocated and will once again be stateless.
ethnic cleansing Wiktionary
The mass expulsion or killing of people belonging to one ethnic group by those of another.
It seems we're using different definitions of ethnic cleansing. I present to you the dictionary and Wikipedia.
Wikipedia
Forced relocation of the population, is ethnic cleansing by definition.
I'm using dictionary definitions, internationally agreed definitions, I'm using the words as their intended in international law and in common usage. I believe that strengthens my argument
That's loaded language which is a falsification what is actually occurring.
We all agree that Israel wants to relocate the Palestinian people outside of their border. It's agreed that Israel has no intention of murdering or enslaving the population. That's not cleansing, that's a forced migration or population transfer.
We all know why you want to use loaded language because it generates a image in the minds of low information people of murder and enslavement.
It's literally the definition of the phrase.
Ethnically cleansing an area, is ensuring an ethnicity is removed, or cleansed from the area.
I'm sorry you disagree with the dictionary, reality must be really difficult to deal with. But we have to deal with the reality we're presented with, and not the reality we would like
I did not agree with you on either of those statements.
You haven't brought it up, but I might as well head off the next issue, it is a genocide:
https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide
It is agreed that it is a genocide
curiously enough, bolding your words doesnt make them true. funny, innit?
They were bolded because i was using the same rhetorical device the other commenter was using right back at them, telling your speaking partner that they agreed to something they haven't agreed to
I dunno, I went back and read through the comments again to see if I had misinterpreted it and it really just seems like you two are splitting hairs.
No, it is not tribal murder. Genocide means racial or tribal murder. Use the correct language.
I can only use the definitions in the dictionary, in the Wikipedia, and the UN. I'm not going to go with your off-the-cuff rejection of the dictionary.
Latin, a language used for thousands of years is far from off-the-cuff.