Are you saying your name is Mildred?
Well, in that case I’d say I disagree with them on the exact problem caused by people like DerTrihs. It’s not that they don’t fight the actual problems, it’s that they show up at protests against the actual problem ranting about idiotic lunatic shit, and then it becomes very easy for normal people to dismiss the whole movement.
But he’s completely right about that behavior being incredibly toxic and downright cancerous to the goal at hand, of opposing Trump.
Again, I’m having to repeat myself.
Here’s where I feel the priorities should be.
Umm… yeah. Is anyone in disagreement with that?
Just the folks in his head.
Once again, cutting and pasting my response to an issue I’ve already addressed.
In this thread, I’m pitting over-the-top Anti-Trump hysteria. It says so right in the thread title.
And if you think over-the-top anti-Trump hysteria hasn’t made an appearance in this thread, I suggest you’re part of the problem.
Okay. I’m going to make one more attempt at this.
Let’s say I hate Elbonians and kill one. That’s a hate crime, not genocide.
Let’s say my government hates Elbonians and kills every last one of them. For sure genocide.
What if me and my buddies kill three hundred of them, a negligible fraction of their numbers: still a hate crime? Probably.
Okay. What if me and my community kill about 3% of the population, while the government turns a blind eye. Still not genocide?
What about 20%? 50%? 95%? where is the line?
There are several continua: how many are killed; whether actively or passively; whether by government in its official capacity, through their neglect, or just without their prevention; that’s just a few factors.
My argument, which is consistent with the UN definition, is that we have already crossed that threshold. Only a tiny number have been killed, mostly passively by government, and that largely through neglect. That is quite different from WWII’s Final Solution, but nevertheless meets the real and legal definition of genocide insofar as I (a non-lawyer) can understand it.
So it’s hysterical to be very, very worried about Trump and his desire to destroy democracy?
You should stop digging Nemo.
Allow me to quote myself:
Can you show me where someone in this thread has refused to help fight against the Trump administration unless the fight is specifically over Trump’s alleged intent to commit genocide or re-introduce slavery?
No, one murder could be a genocide (or one forced relocation that doesn’t involve killing anyone) so long as it includes the critical and necessary element of dolus specialis. It quite literally defines the crime.
If you and your two buddies decide you want to destroy Elbonians as a People, but you’re so incompetent about it that you don’t even manage to kill one guy, you would be guilty of the crime of genocide as defined by the UN.
On the other hand, if you were a very prolific serial killed and you killed every last Elbonian one by me, but you did that accidentally and were not targeting them for their ethnicity - that would not be a genocide.
The line is not a number. I don’t understand what’s difficult about this. The line is dolus specialis, the special intent.
How do you square that argument with the concept of dolus specialis, which is in fact a necessary requirement in the UN definition?
Gawd. Did Hitler attempt to kill all jews? Did he succeed? Was that genocide?
The intent is important. Trump wants every brown person in this country gone (except the ones he can under pay to take care of his properties). One way or another. Millions upon millions of people.
No, Hitler didn’t attempt to kill all the Jews; he might have had long term plans for Jews in America or Asia or North Africa in the event that he conquered the world, but he wasn’t actively trying to kill them by the time he was defeated (they tried in North Africa but didn’t really have the capacity to much, thankfully). That doesn’t make him any less evil, of course, nor does it mean he wasn’t trying to commit a genocide; dolus specialis doesn’t mean you’re trying to kill all the people of a given ethnic group across the entire planet, and of course, he very much did demonstrate the dolus specialis that would be necessary to concluse that he was committing a genocide.
Nice “gotcha” attempt, but since I’m using the actual definition of genocide that was actuallly created in response to real genocides, it fully accounts for that situation.
Any other idiotic rhetorical tricks you want to try?
This is the first mention in this thread of this particular legal term, but a reasonable question.
My answer is that, without psychic powers, I cannot judge another person’s intent. I can only examine their words and actions and infer intent. The words and actions I see coming from the current Executive Branch of the U.S. government show clear animus against immigrants, and, insofar as I can gauge from reading the news, seem to be particularly directed at Latino immigrants.
So what I see is:
- excessive law enforcement that has been dramatically stepped up, in terms of pace and violence, against Latinos in America
- increased anti-immigrant rhetoric, amplified by non-goverment voices such as Loomer’s
- deplorable conditions, of housing such as Alligator Alcatraz and of individuals such as the treatment of Ábrego García
- deaths resulting therefrom, albeit few in number, but no one held to account
From this, I conclude genocide. A reasonable person assessing the same facts might disagree, and I don’t know what a lawyer whose field this is would say, but I don’t think “I disagree with your interpretation of the evidence” is quite the same as what you and Little Nemo are saying.
(Further, I see from other threads that you have a vested interest in a particular take on genocide, but I’d prefer to leave ad hominem issues out of this.)
Idiotic you say that Hitler desired genocide. Fine. That’s your boat to float in. You should probably stop drilling holes.
If you don’t want to judge intent, using legal terms that specifically involve special intent (that’s what dolus specialis means) is a pretty funny way of doing that.
Like, the specific reason that you would call someone a murderer rather than a killer is a judgement of intent, right? You understand this?
And just like murder, genocide is a legal term that inherently and specifically includes intent.
The purpose of saying action X is a genocide is to opine on the intent of said action. Especially in a case like this, where as you said the number of deaths is miniscule and caused by neglect, which means you’re definitely not using the colloquial meaning of the term “genocide”.
This is precisely what I mean about “genocide” meaning “thing you don’t like”. If you “don’t want to judge intent”, to what purpose are you using a term that specifically and inherently invokes intent?
I can’t parse that sentence at all, sorry. Are you trying to mockingly say that I think it’s idiotic to say that Hitler desired genocide? That’s a pretty strange reaction to a post where I say that Hitler desired genocide.
Once again, I don’t think you’re reading for comprehension.
I didn’t say I don’t want to judge intent. I said that it is impossible to do directly. Indeed, I laid out a method by which I would do so indirectly.
The reason I did that is to acknowledge that this is a position that requires evidence and argument rather than mere observation.
Discourse informs me that I have replied to you too often, which is perhaps boring for others trying to read this thread. I am done defending myself to you: you are clearly not even attempting to understand what I write, and I have a nice brick wall I can go argue with right here.
Sorry I screwed up the phrasing. Or perhaps responded to the wrong person. I do believe that Hitler desired genocide. But Hitler would probably not care about genocide if his new ‘superior’ race took over the world. Ya gotta have slaves.
Well, he absolutely would - the Nazi worldview was obsessed with Jews (and imagined Jews, like their idea that the Soviet Union and Communism in general was a Jewish conspiracy).
If you dig deep enough into Great Replacement Theory nonsense, you eventually find that the whackos driving that whole movement don’t think it’s just natural trends and forces driving this “Replacement” - they always come back to belief in a secret cabal driving the process, and if you keep digging you find out that, surprise, it’s the Jews behind it
That’s part of what makes Great Replacement cultists genuine Neo-Nazis rather than garden variety racists. There’s an actual (and quite disturbing) ideological connection there.
It’s also why you see Tucker Carlson bringing historical hacks on his show to opine about how Churchill was the real villain of World War II.
That’s the sort of thing we should point out and criticize, rather than bending logic into pretzels to try and justify the claim that there is a genuine plan to feed all of America’s Hispanic citizens to alligators.
Ouch.