American Politics: The Speaker's Cornered

[Gravlen]

Since you ground your argument in the UN convention, then no, it's not genocide for a technical reason - trans people are not a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. That is a requirement under the UN convention you cited.

However, I acknowledge that this is a point of legal semantics, as the group is still facing persecution and serious human right violations. That it's not genocide in a legal sense does not mean the crimes and violations are any less horrific, in fact an act of persecution could be objectively worse than an act of genocide.

I take no big issue with the colloquial use of the term, or an argument in favour of an expanded definition (which you can't base on the UN document), but as this thread demonstrates, the use of the term risks any debate being derailed by arguments about the term itself.

Except it's an obvious attempt to derail the conversation away from the very real things happening to transgender people in the US. Not to mention that NSG or this conversation is not a court or court entity, and no one was using the UN definition in that capacity but rather to point out that we don't need to wait until the showers turn on since that's too fucking late. They weren't trying to make the legal argument but rather point to the steps and conditions that lead to genocide with the 'named groups' not really being the point.

Arguing if it's a 'legally defined genocide' is an obfuscation and being 'technically correct' doesn't really mean a thing, even if it's the 'best kind of correct.

Eh, I don't quite agree in this case. I read Hispida's posts differently, and see them trying to make a legal argument. Maybe they meant it in another way, but that's how I read it.

I cannot deny that genocide is an emotive term to use, it has scary connotations. And rightly so. But still, I feel that the correct way to go is to not give the people who want to derail the conversation an excuse to do so. That's part of why my chosen language would be to talk about persecution. The problem with my way, however, is that people don't have an understanding of what persecution means nor the same emotional connection to it as genocide. What you gain in accuracy you lose in blunting the language. I understand that, and for those reasons I haven't "well actually"'ed the previous posts talking about trans genocide until the circumstances changed, as I saw them.

It's a bad look for anyone who thinks it's a gotcha. Unless it accurately reflects who they truly are, then it's just a regular ol' mask off moment.

I wouldn't say it's a gotcha, hence my hopefully more nuanced post. My objection is more due to an occupational hazard, I suppose.

[Osmauri]

In other news: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2 ... xt/e1/HTML
Florida is utterly fucking alarming.

Come on Biden.
Martial Law over Florida. I know you want it.

Palpatine says:
D e w i t

[Des-Bal]

It applies to all groups.

It doesn't list a single group because it happens to anyone.

I was nearly dragged into ignorance land. Gotta thinks in this day and age.

Right so gun owners are in fact victims of genocide.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

the definition explains what genocide is and rather than argue that transgender people are not experiencing genocide by the actual definition, you chose to focus on the line prefacing it that lists some types of groups. you’ve basically admitted it’s genocide and then resorted to pointing out that technically a decades-old legal document doesn’t mention gender. you’ve lost this argument.

It applies to all groups.

It doesn't list a single group because it happens to anyone.

I was nearly dragged into ignorance land. Gotta thinks in this day and age.

the UN declaration doesn’t list gender identities as groups that can be genocided, which is the argument against the actions of the government against transgender people being genocide.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

It applies to all groups.

It doesn't list a single group because it happens to anyone.

I was nearly dragged into ignorance land. Gotta thinks in this day and age.

Right so gun owners are in fact victims of genocide.

in what way are gun owners being genocided? the government is not trying to eliminate them.

[Osmauri]

It applies to all groups.

It doesn't list a single group because it happens to anyone.

I was nearly dragged into ignorance land. Gotta thinks in this day and age.

Right so gun owners are in fact victims of genocide.

Tf? No they aren't.
They're hardly persecuted in the States, and it's a full choice to buy and bear arms. Not like the other groups.

[Terra dei Cittadini]

Right, let's reframe one of humanity's worst sins on a slide scale, starting with "Holy SHIT" and only getting worse.

Yeah, right. That can't possibly be abused to evade genocide accusations.

When people are using the same word to describe very different things of very different severity it seems very commonsense to me that this is a failing of the vocabulary, and that said vocabulary would benefit from being evolved.

Genocide can be defined as numerous methods of killing. Terms such as femicide and gendercide exist, so your concern about genocide being a "big tent" is invalid.

Transcide is a term proposed by transgender rights activists to the EU to define the systematic or social persecution of transgender peoples. So yes, transcide can be used to describe the social and governmental persecution of transgender/genderqueer individuals.

[Cannot think of a name]

Except it's an obvious attempt to derail the conversation away from the very real things happening to transgender people in the US. Not to mention that NSG or this conversation is not a court or court entity, and no one was using the UN definition in that capacity but rather to point out that we don't need to wait until the showers turn on since that's too fucking late. They weren't trying to make the legal argument but rather point to the steps and conditions that lead to genocide with the 'named groups' not really being the point.

Arguing if it's a 'legally defined genocide' is an obfuscation and being 'technically correct' doesn't really mean a thing, even if it's the 'best kind of correct.

Eh, I don't quite agree in this case. I read Hispida's posts differently, and see them trying to make a legal argument. Maybe they meant it in another way, but that's how I read it.

I cannot deny that genocide is an emotive term to use, it has scary connotations. And rightly so. But still, I feel that the correct way to go is to not give the people who want to derail the conversation an excuse to do so. That's part of why my chosen language would be to talk about persecution. The problem with my way, however, is that people don't have an understanding of what persecution means nor the same emotional connection to it as genocide. What you gain in accuracy you lose in blunting the language. I understand that, and for those reasons I haven't "well actually"'ed the previous posts talking about trans genocide until the circumstances changed, as I saw them.

It's a bad look for anyone who thinks it's a gotcha. Unless it accurately reflects who they truly are, then it's just a regular ol' mask off moment.

I wouldn't say it's a gotcha, hence my hopefully more nuanced post. My objection is more due to an occupational hazard, I suppose.

To me this is briar patch thinking and falls into the same category as 'tone policing.'

People who need to distract from the increasing threat to the safety and well being of transgendered people lest it be seen for what it is don't need 'an excuse' and giving them a pass on 'legally correct' or apply the same kind of stringent adherence to terminology as a court would have serves their purpose, not the discourses. If we hand wave off each step we take towards their complete eradication as 'not technically genocide if you use these definitions' we basically excuse each step. There are whole ass buildings dedicated to documenting how each step was normalized in Germany and "strictly speaking..." features in every single one.

In 2016 Colin Kapernick kneeled during the national anthem to protest police brutality. For the next four years we argued whether or not a football game or the national anthem or a football player or a game in general were the 'proper' way to go about protesting or making a point, over whether or not he even had the right to do so.

In 2020 all of those and the ones before it where people argued terminology or tone, all those ignored tensions exploded into a year long massive protest.

I don't think 'playing along' with people who will use any excuse to derail the conversation does us any favors. You better than most of us understand that a strict understanding of terms is important in your line of work. Semantics in open debate where colloquial understandings are perfectly valid and understood only serves those who wish to crash the whole thing.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

genocide is a pretty simple concept, actually. it’s intentionally attempting to destroy a large group of people. people can try to interpret this narrowly as murder, but that’s pretty clearly inaccurate.

[Gravlen]

When people are using the same word to describe very different things of very different severity it seems very commonsense to me that this is a failing of the vocabulary, and that said vocabulary would benefit from being evolved.

Genocide can be defined as numerous methods of killing. Terms such as femicide and gendercide exist, so your concern about genocide being a "big tent" is invalid.

Besides, it's meant to be a "big tent" term. The definition doesn't even require killing in order for something to be genocide.

[Terra dei Cittadini]

It applies to all groups.

It doesn't list a single group because it happens to anyone.

I was nearly dragged into ignorance land. Gotta thinks in this day and age.

Right so gun owners are in fact victims of genocide.

No.
We want gun control.

We aren't gonna bust in and take your shotgun, but we're trying to make it so that guns don't fall into the hands of the homicidal.

[San Lumen]

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... habitation

Michigan Republicans fight effort to repeal ban on unmarried cohabitation
Law signed in 1931 is rarely enforced but carries penalty of prison time and $1,000 fine

[Osmauri]

Right so gun owners are in fact victims of genocide.

No.
We want gun control.

We aren't gonna bust in and take your shotgun, but we're trying to make it so that guns don't fall into the hands of the homicidal.

On that note, I believe that there should be no owned arms. Unfortunately, humans are flawed enough that we need self-defence.

[Dumb Ideologies]

When people are using the same word to describe very different things of very different severity it seems very commonsense to me that this is a failing of the vocabulary, and that said vocabulary would benefit from being evolved.

Genocide can be defined as numerous methods of killing. Terms such as femicide and gendercide exist, so your concern about genocide being a "big tent" is invalid.

Transcide is a term proposed by transgender rights activists to the EU to define the systematic or social persecution of transgender peoples. So yes, transcide can be used to describe the social and governmental persecution of transgender/genderqueer individuals.

The issue of this is that these neologisms clearly piggyback off the term "genocide" and so attempt to elevate the focus on them by false equivalence with full fat mass murder.

If any group can have its own "cide" defined by activists and axiomatically requiring external action then I suppose rent controls or elimination would be landlordcide and international organisations would have to consider embargoes and military action.

[Osmauri]

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/21/michigan-republicans-repeal-ban-unmarried-cohabitation

Michigan Republicans fight effort to repeal ban on unmarried cohabitation
Law signed in 1931 is rarely enforced but carries penalty of prison time and $1,000 fine

I misread that and thought that Michigan Repubs were the most based, and then I looked closer.

I regret eyesight.

[Des-Bal]

Tf? No they aren't.
They're hardly persecuted in the States, and it's a full choice to buy and bear arms. Not like the other groups.

States have all sorts of laws oppressing us hoping to make us a smaller and smaller minority until we disappear. A permit to carry is no different than a gold star.

To me this is briar patch thinking and falls into the same category as 'tone policing.'

People who need to distract from the increasing threat to the safety and well being of transgendered people lest it be seen for what it is don't need 'an excuse' and giving them a pass on 'legally correct' or apply the same kind of stringent adherence to terminology as a court would have serves their purpose, not the discourses. If we hand wave off each step we take towards their complete eradication as 'not technically genocide if you use these definitions' we basically excuse each step. There are whole ass buildings dedicated to documenting how each step was normalized in Germany and "strictly speaking..." features in every single one.

In 2016 Colin Kapernick kneeled during the national anthem to protest police brutality. For the next four years we argued whether or not a football game or the national anthem or a football player or a game in general were the 'proper' way to go about protesting or making a point, over whether or not he even had the right to do so.

In 2020 all of those and the ones before it where people argued terminology or tone, all those ignored tensions exploded into a year long massive protest.

I don't think 'playing along' with people who will use any excuse to derail the conversation does us any favors. You better than most of us understand that a strict understanding of terms is important in your line of work. Semantics in open debate where colloquial understandings are perfectly valid and understood only serves those who wish to crash the whole thing.

It is tone policing. Your tone is awful and it makes people ignore you. Your entire fucking narrative here is you acknowledging that every single time you use the word genocide what you're saying is "they're going to start killing people"

[Des-Bal]

No.
We want gun control.

We aren't gonna bust in and take your shotgun, but we're trying to make it so that guns don't fall into the hands of the homicidal.

And Desantis just wants to protect children.

[American Legionaries]

Right so gun owners are in fact victims of genocide.

No.
We want gun control.

We aren't gonna bust in and take your shotgun, but we're trying to make it so that guns don't fall into the hands of the homicidal.

You realize that the government does bust in and take people's shotguns, right?

[Narland]

The definition of genocide is constantly being refined by the UN. Right now it means:

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

Killing members of the group;
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;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

One must have both an ideological and a material element for it to be considered genocide. I have a lot of reservation about the term. Suffice it to say, all of these things are crimes in and of themselves.

[Untecna]

People, let's remember that those who claim that gun owners are being oppressed in the U.S. have no idea what they are talking about.

[American Legionaries]

People, let's remember that those who claim that gun owners are being oppressed in the U.S. have no idea what they are talking about.

Remembering heinous lies is bad, and you should stop.

[Terra dei Cittadini]

Genocide can be defined as numerous methods of killing. Terms such as femicide and gendercide exist, so your concern about genocide being a "big tent" is invalid.

Besides, it's meant to be a "big tent" term. The definition doesn't even require killing in order for something to be genocide.

True, genocide can be either direct or indirect. It has to be method of stifling a group's existence via extermination.

For example, Holodomor is an example of indirect extermination, as food was cut off from the now-Ukrainian populace.

[Terra dei Cittadini]

No.
We want gun control.

We aren't gonna bust in and take your shotgun, but we're trying to make it so that guns don't fall into the hands of the homicidal.

You realize that the government does bust in and take people's shotguns, right?

Prove it~

[Des-Bal]

People, let's remember that those who claim that gun owners are being oppressed in the U.S. have no idea what they are talking about.

Is that so? Well then I challenge you to oppression olympics!

Waco siege I choose you!

A group of Mandolorians were targeted by the government for their shared culture and at before all was done 86 of them were killed.

[Narland]

People, let's remember that those who claim that gun owners are being oppressed in the U.S. have no idea what they are talking about.

Or could it be that people who claim there is no attempt to shame, hinder or criminalize lawful gun (actually small arms) ownership and use in the US do not know what they are taking about?