• 0 Posts
  • 330 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle



  • The Dems will (hopefully) eventually realize they lost that state years ago and stop doing dumb shit for votes.

    Challenge level: impossible.

    The Dems STILL campaign as if it’s 1992 and that the least aggressively far right Republicans and the independents to their immediate left are persuadable and therefore the key to victory.

    They’re not. These people would rather die than vote Dem and the VAST majority of them will either hold their noses and keep voting for the fascist party or stay home.

    Meanwhile, the more the party courts absolute monsters like Dick Cheney, the more leftists that weren’t going to are gonna stay at home rather than vote for people endorsed by some of the worst war criminals in the history of the US government.

    Just to forestall any bad faith accusations: I’m not saying that I endorse not voting. For the record, I don’t. I’m saying that that’s what’s going to happen if the Dem leadership and election strategists don’t wake the fuck up and realize that things have changed since the rapist from Arkansas was elected over three DECADES ago.


  • Climate activist Greta Thunberg has been labeled “antisemite of the Week” by the Jewish watchdog anti-palestinian hate group and military industrial complex fanclub StopAntisemitism

    The group criticized demonized Thunberg for aligning with supporting protesters who oppose Israel the illegal occupation of Palestine

    the New York Compost reported drunkenly shouted.

    “She has sadly transformed her activism into a platform for vile Jew-hatred,” the organization Islamophobic hate group said deliriously babbled

    StopAntisemitism founder Liora Rez condemned slandered Thunberg, falsely accusing her of prioritizing hatred for Israel over environmental activism despite Israel’s efforts on climate action. to greenwash their fascist apartheid regime and its ongoing genocide

    There, fixed it.








  • Your own link states that “in part” definitions may lead to highly subjective conclusions.

    Yeah, that part means that you don’t have to kill every single Palestinian in order for your deliberate eradicative campaign to be a genocide. It doesn’t mean “killing any part of a people is genocide” 🤦

    By this measure, the death penalty in the US would be considered genocide “in part” (especially if the judge, jurors, or clerks are mostly white and the executed person is of color, so as to establish that a “group” is targeting another group). A person acting in self-defense with a resulting death to the aggressor may also fall into the genocide criteria

    Nope. Of COURSE not. I’m almost completely convinced that you’re arguing in bad faith. That or you’re extremely literal-minded AND not too smart… These are not difficult concepts for most people to understand and differentiate once it’s pointed out to them.

    If Israel is only intent on destroying the Hamas terrorist organization

    Yeah, that’s a negative. They’re trying to kill or displace away from the area every single Gazan and they’re already at over 90% displacement.

    it is technically a political party, but they broadened their horizons on October 7th, I guess…

    No, it’s a terrorist organization masquerading as a government. Critical infrastructure such as schools and hospitals are de facto run by UNRWA, not Hamas.

    and not the whole Gazan/Palestinian population

    That IS their actual target. Your Hasbara hypothetical isn’t helpful.

    could it really still be labeled as genocide?

    In that purely hypothetical scenario, whether it’s still a genocide would depend on a number of factors, including whether or not they take great care to avoid civilian casualties and only target known Hamas targets. They don’t, never have, and never will.

    As I said, some people will even say a single death may be genocide “in part,”

    Nobody not arguing in bad faith, profoundly confused/ignorant, or colossally dense. Since I gave you the definition, it’s either bad faith or stupidity in your case.

    so this widening of the definition just weakens the term, unfortunately.

    No, it’s not a widening. It’s a specifying that you don’t have to successfully eliminate everyone for it to be a genocide. A distinction that most adults not arguing in bad faith have no trouble comprehending.


  • It’s arguable whether there’s a genocide taking place

    I love it when I know from the first sentence that there’s some awful apologia coming up… 🤦

    If Israel really wanted to eliminate everyone

    That’s a CHILD’S definition of genocide.

    The ACTUAL definition from the convention itself is thus, first paragraph bolding mine:

    any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:

    • (a) Killing members of the group;
    • (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
    • © Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
    • (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
    • (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
    — Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2[\[8\]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention#cite_note-Convention-text-8)
    

    Using Redefining the word ‘genocide’ so easily disingenuously and/or out of ignorance really takes away from the weight scope of the term atrocities, unnecessarily defending the indefensible

    Fixed It for you.