What if they make them cease to exist without killing them? (Force people to use the sex assigned at birth, make it physically dangerous to be trans, etc.)
Genocides don’t have to involve actual killing. This is not really debatable. Disagree all you want, doesn’t change that. “Intent to destroy” is the thing, and that can happen without killing.
Where a skilled pedant might have standing to argue is that, strictly, genocides are about an ethnicity or a people or similar. But as far as I’m concerned that ship sailed with the Holocaust and sank well-and-truly with Stonewall.
I don’t recognize MrDibbles’ authority to declare the definition of words. So I’m sticking with what I’ve said. Genocide is when you try to eliminate a group by killing the people in that group. Forcing people to go into hiding, deporting people out of the country, or putting people into prisons are not the same as killing people. These are serious crimes but they’re not genocide.
Do you recognize the authority of the man who coined the word genocide?
I’m not the one making the definitions. I’m just the one not cherry-picking the few out of the mountain of them that mandates killing as a component.
Extra characters.
You mean the man who invented two different words, culturicide and genocide, to describe two different things?
I’m not ignoring the issue. I’ve consistently said this.
I just don’t feel the need to exaggerate the issue while I fight it. I can fight against attacks on civil rights and democracy and the rule of law without feeling the need to claim I’m fighting against genocide.
Your answer to my question in no way requires me to answer that question. Try again, here’s a clue yes, no, or maybe with an explanation.
Okay.
Yes, I recognize Raphael Lemkin as an authority on the meaning of the words culturicide and genocide.
No, Raphael Lemkin did not say that culturicide and genocide are the same thing. That’s why he invented two different words for them.
Maybe, with an explanation. I would recognize MrDibbles’ authority to declare the definition of the word genocide if he is Raphael Lemkin. But Raphael Lemkin died in 1959 so I think that’s unlikely.
Trump claims that Portland, Oregon, is at war. This is news to Portland.
So he’s sending in the troops.
Did you read the link?
Etymology
The notion of ‘cultural genocide’ was acknowledged as early as 1944, when lawyer Raphael Lemkin distinguished a cultural component of genocide.
Now, I’m sure you’re going to argue it but it’s pretty clear to me from that that cultural genocide is a subset of genocide according to it’s coiner.
Again, looking for clarification here. Are you saying that the mountain of uses of the word genocide mandates killing as a component? If so, I agree.
Or are you saying that only a few uses of the word genocide mandates killing as a component? If so, I disagree. Even if you are right to the extent that a non-killing definition of genocide is correct (which I don’t think you are) that normal usage of the word includes killing people. If you use the word genocide, most people are going to think you’re talking about killing.
It would be over-the-top Anti-Trump hysteria for us to claim that Trump has declared war on Portland without evidence of military action.
Then why the hell do you keep winding it back up??
I’m familiar with Lemkin’s work and this is not what he said. Lemkin said that genocide involves killing people. Culturicide is attacking a people’s culture. Culturicide and genocide are two different things. The connection Lemkin saw between culturicide and genocide is that often occur together.
I think – if that were actually what you were doing – you’d get very close to no pushback whatsoever for doing it.
But that’s not what you’re actually doing.
ETA:
No one said he did.
Trump is claiming that Portland is at war with “somebody”.
Unnamed.
I think this thread has demonstrated this is not the case.
I have no secret agenda here. People claiming they have figured out my secret agenda are therefore wrong.
Shouldn’t Trump’s response to that be wishing both sides good luck?