Cannot think of a name wrote:Gravlen wrote: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.
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.
Sure, but then again, why do you think I'm on NSG if not to be able to nitpick when someone misuses a legal definition?
But seriously, that's why I think it's incumbent on good faith debaters to point out that while it's not technically genocide, it's still unacceptable and horrible human rights abuses. Those who just go "Well it's technically not genocide FULL STOP" can be ignored, as they don't bring anything to the discussion unless you want to have the legalistic argument (Which may have been what Hispida wanted, since they brought up legal documents with specific legal definitions to defend their argument).
That's the way to ensure you don't excuse or downplay what's happening.
Which you need to ensure you don't do, because whatever you call it, what we see is attempts to eradicate a minority group, attempts to legislate them out of existence, attempts to justify violations of their human rights - things that gives the green light for brutal and violent acts, including assaults on basic freedoms, rights and dignities.
