[DRAFT] People Arguing Over Definition of Genocide V3

[CaJaRo]

Title - How does one respond to a Genocide?

Description - After one of @@NAME@@'s allies, the Despojanbourg Republic, had over 1,000 of its own citizens executed because they were members of Dodekahedrianism (an ancient and minority religion in the region), many people are now arguing over what to do about genocides.

Choices -
1 - "They purposely tried to kill their own citizens"! Yells @@RANDOMNAME@@, the Dodekahedrianist Pope of @@CAPITAL@@, clearly upset about this event. "What else can we do but denounce them? We need bring awareness to the Dodekahedrianist struggle, and show the world we do not approve of the Despojanbourg Republic's actions. How? Simple! Ban their ambassador, and announce to the world that we do not support them".
Effect - @@CAPITAL@@'s embassies are commonly left empty when foreign governments do something controversial

2 - "But what about our relationships with other nations"? Cautioned @@RANDOMNAME@@, our Foreign Relations Advisor. "They won't like us speaking up. It could harm relations. Our friendship only takes compliance, and think of all the things friendship brings! Peaceful borders, good trade, probably some other things. If we offend them, or their allies, it may make it harder to organize peace deals, or trade opportunities. It may even spark war. We need to stay silent".
Effect - awkward silence ensues at foreign embassies when other diplomats bring up controversial issues

3 - "I think your looking at it from the wrong perspective", says the local fascist party leader, @@RANDOMNAME@@. "You all seem to think this is a bad thing. It's not. Those Dodekahedrianists had it coming, we should praise the Despojanbourg Republic for finally getting rid of them. In fact, we should consider, just consider, taking up their torch and continuing it here".
Effect - many people are preparing for a local genocide by hiding minorities in their basements

4 - A young man walks into your office and sits down. "It's a conspiracy", he whispered, putting on a tinfoil hat. "It is false information created by minorities, terrorists, and other enemies to tarnish the reputation of our allies. We need to keep such lies out of the hands of the public. I propose banning any mention of this so-called genocide, and anything else the government discovers is false. The news is spreading lies, and it's our job to stop it".
Effect - news organisations are no longer allowed to talk about [CENSORED]

[Verdant Haven]

I think you've given the punchline in the description here. Purposely killing 100,000 of your own citizens on the sole basis of their religion absolutely is, unequivocally, genocide.

The conflation of a police shootout with the murder of 100,000 innocents in option 1 makes no sense at all, and there is no "new definition" at play. A state condemning the massacre of a population is not making any sort of commentary on, much less redefinition of, routine law enforcement work.

I'd say this is more workable as an issue on the topic of "What should the response be to genocide" rather than "What is genocide." Condemning it, ignoring it, and praising it are valid responses to that question.

Final thought for the moment: in option three, you probably shouldn't call the person a Nazi. For one, it biases the answers (it basically says "this is the evil response, and you are evil for choosing it), and secondly, Nazis are a real world group, who may not exist in NS. It would be fair to call the individual an extremist, a fervent nationalist, or some other things, but Nazi is about the most loaded term you can use on the internet, so probably is best avoided.

[USS Monitor]

Welcome to Got Issues.

As far as knowing how to put a sentence together, you're doing all right. You've got "weather" one place where it should be "whether," and some other minor things, but little mistakes like that are common and easy to fix.

What you need to work on is coming up with an interesting subject and injecting it with humor.

Final thought for the moment: in option three, you probably shouldn't call the person a Nazi. For one, it biases the answers (it basically says "this is the evil response, and you are evil for choosing it), and secondly, Nazis are a real world group, who may not exist in NS. It would be fair to call the individual an extremist, a fervent nationalist, or some other things, but Nazi is about the most loaded term you can use on the internet, so probably is best avoided.

Nazis do exist elsewhere in issues, but I agree that in most situations, it is better to use a more generic term like "fascist."

[Verdant Haven]

Nazis do exist elsewhere in issues, but I agree that in most situations, it is better to use a more generic term like "fascist."

Thanks for the clarification! I wasn't 100% sure if they were around or not, but it definitely feels like a term best avoided if trying to create a usable option.

[CaJaRo]

Thank you for your advise, I've made an updated draft.

[Verdant Haven]

Alrighty... phew this is a tough one, just because of the subject matter. Hard to add humor to this heavy of a topic! Definitely some improvements here in v2 - I think we can start moving this towards something looking like an issue draft. Bear with me! I'll make a bunch of suggestions and re-writes here, but these are very much just my opinion on how to phrase things, or potential directions to go.

Title - People Arguing Over Definition of Genocide

Since this is moving away from the "definition of genocide" and more towards the "acknowledgement of genocide's occurrence" I think we could go towards a catchier title. Something like "To Blame or Not to Blame?" might work, though there are already two other issues with that format (124 and 265). Perhaps something like "Blame Game Causes Pain."

Description - After one of @@NAME@@'s allies, the Despojanbourg Republic, purposely killed over 1,000 of its own citizens based entirely on religion, many people are now arguing over whether it constitutes a genocide, and what to do about it.

1,000 is a vast improvement over 100,000 here - it leaves a bit more of a question mark over the whole thing. It is obviously a horrifying act, and probably still would qualify, but I could better understand a person arguing that it should be ignored than with an extra couple zeros on it.

I think the middle portion of the wording could be smoothed out a bit and phrased in a manner more likely to elicit debate. I would likely replace "...purposely killed over 1,000 of its citizens based entirely on religion..." with "...had over 1,000 of its citizens executed on the basis of their membership in an outlawed religion..." It might also be worth splitting the description in to two sentences for comprehensibility - your call!

Choices -
1 - "Of course it's a genocide", says @@RANDOMNAME@@, "they purposely tried to kill their own citizens, that makes it a genocide. We need to tell the world we do not condone these actions, and that we feel bad for these innocent victims".

Purposely killing their own citizens isn't what makes it a genocide - genocide can be perpetrated against an outside group, and individuals can be killed at home without qualifying. Genocide is typically defined as killings perpetrated as part of a concerted effort to exterminate a specific group (racial, ethnic, religious, etc). A stronger argument might be "This is clearly genocide!" says @@RANDOMNAME@@. "They wiped out over half of this sect for no reason other than their religion! We need to tell the world..." etc.

I might also replace the "and we feel bad for..." clause with something like "by kicking out their ambassador!" That would provide a firm link for the empty embassy in the effect text.

If it doesn't make it too long, I'd also suggest providing a bit more context for the randomly named individual. Who are they, and why are they amongst those with the privilege of giving you feedback? Also, "says" is a very flat word - grab a thesaurus and pick something more lively. They're probably pretty worked up on this topic!

Effect - after condemnation of Despojanbourg's recent actions, their embassy in @@CAPITAL@@ has been mysteriously left empty.

Because of how they're presented, I'm under the impression it's better for effect text to be relatively short and not have commas. They also don't get periods on the end. A possible re-phrasing here might be:

"embassies are left empty when foreign governments make the wrong move"

2 - "We can't call it a genocide", says your international adviser, @@RANDOMNAME@@. "If we call it a genocide, it could harm our relations with our neighbors who disagree. We should do nothing, that way we can't offend anyone".

Why do we care if our neighbors are offended? Mention the consequence, or at least imply it! "If we call it genocide, it could harm our trade relations with Despojanbourg. Do you know what that would do to our @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ business? We should do nothing..."

Also, same note regarding "says" by the advisor (and spelling on "advisor").

Effect - when other countries ask for a diplomat's opinion on something, they just stand awkwardly silent.

Similar to above regarding the comma and period, but I love the idea. It could be rephrased along the lines of "awkward topics lead to awkward silences from @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ diplomats"

3 - "I agree it's a genocide", says a local fascist party member, @@RANDOMNAME@@. "But I think it's a good thing. We should praise them for this wonderful thing they've done".

Since we already have one "yes it's genocide" and one "don't call it that," it could be time for a third option - I'd go with "who cares" as the approach from this person. Something like "I don't care what you call it, but I think it's a good thing! Those crazy sectarians deserve it! We should praise Despojanbourgh for..."

We could upgrade the speaker to a "fanatical fascist mouthpiece" or something. That way it's not just a random party member, but specifically a spokesperson (Again, answering the question on why their input managed to make it all the way to you). Same note with "says" as above.

Effect - many people are preparing for a local genocide.

In this terrifying reality, how does one prepare for genocide? I feel like it would be more of a fear situation than anything, and it would affect minority groups in particular. Something like "minorities live in fear of a government crackdown" might capture that feeling better. This issue would likely be extremely emotional for all involved, so trying to capture that emotion is relevant.

4 - A young man walks into your office and sits down. "It's a conspiracy", he whispered, putting on a tinfoil hat. "It is false information created by minorities, terrorists, and other enemies to tarnish the reputation of our allies. We need to keep such lies out of the hands of the public. I propose banning any mention of this so-called genocide".

Effect - news organisations are no longer allowed to talk about [CENSORED].

This is an interesting take on the holocaust denier problem, and that effect text does actually succeed in adding humor to a super dark take on a super dark topic, but I guess I'd have to ask what the real difference is between the results of option 2 and option 4. Both will end up with a functionally similar practical effect, even if for different reasons. Also, option 3 is bordering on "the crazy response" already, so this even more crazy response may feel unnecessary unless it has bigger results. Something like "and you can't trust any news coming from other nations! We must prohibit all outside influence on @@NAME@@ - news, trade, entertainment, everything!" That would very emphatically make it different from the others, and have some major policy implications.

Final note! Spelling > "organizations"


Sorry for so much wordiness here, but hopefully some of that is helpful! It's a very real topic, and I think a very important one to boot. Kudos for taking it on.

[Australian rePublic]

Option 4- Wait, what?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Local definitions of a word really don't matter for something like this - the only context where a definition would matter is in an international court.

IRL, internationally accepted definitions of genocide usually come from international bodies, like the UN.

In nationstates, I think an international definition of genocide would be best approached through the World Assembly, not Issues.

[Jutsa]

And alas, I'm pretty near certain the WA already has a convention on genocide.

[Trotterdam]

And alas, I'm pretty near certain the WA already has a convention on genocide.

That's a bad thing?

[Jutsa]

Well, I mean, it is a bad thing for CaJaRo if they were thinking of making something like this over there.