@dhfir my favorite one today was a right winger trying to meme that its ok to kill civilians because if they didn't want to be killed the terrorist org they don't control shouldn't have taken hostages then :blobcatgooglybadumtss:
@icedquinn then when the surviving hostages decide they like the terrorists better you make up some bullshit about "stockholm syndrome" to discredit them.
@icedquinn@dhfir i dont like calling it genocide since it implies the intention to kill innocent people but compared to other similar situations i dont think this happens... In addition, structures that would determine whether this would be the case have their eyes on the situation and have so far been unable to detect any intent
@Jain@dhfir they are maliciously negligent, at best.
when asked what they were doing to minimize collateral damage the JIDF basically said palestenians aren't people and they've also been caught/admitted to using AI for targetting.
I've seen some people claim it's an "ethnic cleansing, not a genocide", not that that's much better. Also, while there is a difference between intent to kill innocent people, and intent to remove them from the area paired with apathy as to whether they live or die, I don't think the intent really matters as much when the end result is a lot of innocent people dying.
@anemone@icedquinn@dhfir well, im not against learning, altho as in every complex situation, forgive me if i take your word with a grain of salt, feel free to link some sources
@Jain@blob.cat@icedquinn@blob.cat@dhfir@suya.place Many high ranking officials in the Israeli government have plainly stated their intent is to kill or displace (they like the term "voluntary migration" lol) the population of gaza and the military action in the area has such a high civilian casualty rate and so many instances of target strikes against civilians, hospitals, ambulances, aid workers, etc that the only possible explanations are that it is either an intentional part of the mission or that the IDF basically has no command structure and is just handing control of their weapons over to cliques unsupervised racist murderers (which in itself is a choice).
There's no possible rational argument against this being genocide.
@dhfir@icedquinn@Alex you are calling my arguments dumb while you are implying that i said something about the whole situation within my post even tho i didnt? try again please...
@Jain@icedquinn@Alex "hey, whether or not we end up using this specific word has no bearing on what's actually happening" "I object to using that specific word" ngl your whole argument seems kinda dumb and like maybe you're missing the point?
@Alex@dhfir@icedquinn Please define "what's actually happening" so we can continue with proper arguments. You are implying that genocide happens and i argued against it. Should i link sources to the "structures that would determine whether this would be the case have their eyes on the situation and have so far been unable to detect any intent" or do you know what i mean? Would you like to post your source for your agruments?
@dhfir@icedquinn@Alex Or we just talking past each other... You have to know that i dont speak english natively and it could be that i misread something at some point or maybe the thread got you confused since you answered not on my first post... idk, anyway
> i dont like calling it genocide since it implies the intention to kill innocent people but compared to other similar situations i dont think this happens... In addition, structures that would determine whether this would be the case have their eyes on the situation and have so far been unable to detect any intent.
So my answer to "those who argue against the use of the word genocide are missing the point." is that no they dont, maybe a few do but in general, why should they?
@Jain@icedquinn@Alex buddy. literally my entire argument is a single. and I mean ONE. SINGLE. POST. in which I specifically used the phrase "mass killing of innocents" to describe the situation, thus avoiding the proactive use of the term "genocide" as this would undermine the point I was trying to make. yes, my cw does imply that, and I do believe it, but nothing you have posted thus far has so much as acknowledged the posotion I was originally arguing for. that position being, ironically enough, that those who argue against the use of the word genocide are missing the point. seriously, you're essentially an oblivious walking strawman at this point.
@dhfir so lets untag some people which are not within that conversation...
I know what your original Argument is and i disagree. I cant think of any Person who argues within this conflict in any aspect (no matter which part of it) which want to down talk the fact that innocent people are being killed. For sure, there are some idiots which might argue that those innocent people dont matter but lets exclude those assholes. Im in the opinion that Words and their definition has to be acknowledged and for the fact that you attach great importance to what I say, I find it almost absurd that you do not recognize the importance of the term genocide. In the current context, I associate the term with anti-Semitism, populism and misinformation, among other things. Obviously, as most other also do, im in the opinion that every innocent Civilians death is one too many. The whole argument can also be turned around, why does everyone not just talk about the innocent civilians instead of accusing Israel of genocide?
> secondly, "talking past each other" implies we're both doing it. you're the one who started playing a definitions game in response to me criticizing people who do exactly that. that's on you.
Same goes for you, you replied to my answer to a different person. Correct would be to answer this on my first post then and not to a random post of mine.
@Jain@icedquinn@Alex okay, first off, my original argument was not "the word genocide is appropriate and we should be using it" but instead "innocent people are being killed in massive numbers, this is bad, and those arguing things like that the word genocide is inappropriate merely distract from this while failing to address it" and you have spent your arguing that the word genocide is inappropriate, without actually addressing my argument. secondly, "talking past each other" implies we're both doing it. you're the one who started playing a definitions game in response to me criticizing people who do exactly that. that's on you.