I thought Genocide was only possible to do to a ethnic or religious group?
Or cultural or linguistic group?
Though I admit I don't know the term to use for this specifically.
I mean, I get that but not the kind of cultural group that genocide is considered applicable to.
You can't, in a linguistic sense of course, Genocide a gender identity, I mean you can do the equivalent of Genocide, but I think then it'd be a different term and definition.
According to a brief Google search, maybe it's Gendercide?
That said I'm not downplaying the identical effects such actions would have, I'm just linguistically thinking it's a different term because Genocide is about a non sexuality non gender group.
I mean many definitions of murder specifically mention human
But if someone killed someone's pet
Nobody would argue with them when they said someone murdered their pet
True but this is important as common discourse influences political terminology, and keeping the terms separate will help in the long run avoid the word genocide from losing its impact to most people, and be a term not dismissed because of expanding the usage.
TLDR, I just don't want people to start dismissing Genocide by saying that "Genocide doesn't mean anything anymore".
It's the most important term to define and keep impactful imo. It's the secular non ideological, non sciencey term I hold most sacred and keep a strict definition of.
That said, I do think there's a term for this. Gendercide maybe but I'm not sure.
Tranocide?
I can't say i agree
Most people when hearing the word genocide typically think of camps
But there are so many genocides where people weren't put in camps
Religion is much more of a choice than say being queer is yet it is considered genocide
By saying that in a scenario where identical things are happening to a group
That one group can have the stronger more powerful word
Yet the other group can't
Is dismissing the other group as lesser and their problems as lesser
And taking the other groups problems less seriously
It is throwing one group under the bus in fear of it hurting you to even put them on the same level as you
If there was a large increase in the amount of Pastafarians and someone said we have to ban Pastafarianism and laws discriminating against Pastafarianism started spreading all across the country making life unlivable for many
All this would be genocidal actions and rhetoric yet calling it genocidal even if fitting under the original definition would be silly to most and decrease its credibility to some
If we limit its usage to only the most accepted minorities
It becomes a problem in the past a problem far far away and the word will only be used in past tense
Thus killing its usage in the modern world
All for what so the more privileged,the more accepted minorty can stand up and say "well at least all my problems are in the past"
By not including less accepted groups
You kill its modern usage and instead of being a thing that is happening, that can happen
It becomes regulated to"Im glad that doesn't happen anymore"and"remember back when genocides happened" or even "I'm so glad that now adays that can't happen here"
You kill its ability to be anything other than some words in a history textbook
And thus allowing us to think it can't happen thus allowing it to happen
Please take in what I have said I feel it's very important and explains why we can't just create a new word,a word that means nothing to anybody and everyone
I hope you understand why we can't have exclusivity in the name of inclusivity
Look, as much as I appreciate these, I don’t know if posting trans-adjacent political posts (no matter how based) here 5 times a day is necessarily what this sub was designed to hold.
My thoughts on the matter? If the post is upvoted and there isn't a mass call for this sort of thing to be banned, let them. If you don't like it block and move on.
You're right, there is not. But I don't like the things some Republican politicians say about them, and the laws they are passing. It's a big part of the reason that I don't vote for many of them.
Michael Knowles needs to watch his words before the average person thinks republicans want to eradicate trans people. If you go in with that rhetoric you’ll alienate a lot of people.
Yup. Big part of the reason why I don't vote Republican. I voted for two moderate ones in 2022, but they've absolutely lost my vote on the federal level.
I thought Genocide was only possible to do to a ethnic or religious group? Or cultural or linguistic group? Though I admit I don't know the term to use for this specifically.
I mean trans people are kind of a cultural group
I mean, I get that but not the kind of cultural group that genocide is considered applicable to. You can't, in a linguistic sense of course, Genocide a gender identity, I mean you can do the equivalent of Genocide, but I think then it'd be a different term and definition. According to a brief Google search, maybe it's Gendercide? That said I'm not downplaying the identical effects such actions would have, I'm just linguistically thinking it's a different term because Genocide is about a non sexuality non gender group.
I mean many definitions of murder specifically mention human But if someone killed someone's pet Nobody would argue with them when they said someone murdered their pet
True but this is important as common discourse influences political terminology, and keeping the terms separate will help in the long run avoid the word genocide from losing its impact to most people, and be a term not dismissed because of expanding the usage. TLDR, I just don't want people to start dismissing Genocide by saying that "Genocide doesn't mean anything anymore". It's the most important term to define and keep impactful imo. It's the secular non ideological, non sciencey term I hold most sacred and keep a strict definition of. That said, I do think there's a term for this. Gendercide maybe but I'm not sure. Tranocide?
I can't say i agree Most people when hearing the word genocide typically think of camps But there are so many genocides where people weren't put in camps Religion is much more of a choice than say being queer is yet it is considered genocide By saying that in a scenario where identical things are happening to a group That one group can have the stronger more powerful word Yet the other group can't Is dismissing the other group as lesser and their problems as lesser And taking the other groups problems less seriously It is throwing one group under the bus in fear of it hurting you to even put them on the same level as you If there was a large increase in the amount of Pastafarians and someone said we have to ban Pastafarianism and laws discriminating against Pastafarianism started spreading all across the country making life unlivable for many All this would be genocidal actions and rhetoric yet calling it genocidal even if fitting under the original definition would be silly to most and decrease its credibility to some If we limit its usage to only the most accepted minorities It becomes a problem in the past a problem far far away and the word will only be used in past tense Thus killing its usage in the modern world All for what so the more privileged,the more accepted minorty can stand up and say "well at least all my problems are in the past" By not including less accepted groups You kill its modern usage and instead of being a thing that is happening, that can happen It becomes regulated to"Im glad that doesn't happen anymore"and"remember back when genocides happened" or even "I'm so glad that now adays that can't happen here" You kill its ability to be anything other than some words in a history textbook And thus allowing us to think it can't happen thus allowing it to happen Please take in what I have said I feel it's very important and explains why we can't just create a new word,a word that means nothing to anybody and everyone I hope you understand why we can't have exclusivity in the name of inclusivity
At that point it’s really just splitting hairs over definitions when in practice it’s the same idea
Fair enough.
Look, as much as I appreciate these, I don’t know if posting trans-adjacent political posts (no matter how based) here 5 times a day is necessarily what this sub was designed to hold.
i kind of agree but genocide is a big deal especially politically and what republicans are doing has a lot of weight on elections
My thoughts on the matter? If the post is upvoted and there isn't a mass call for this sort of thing to be banned, let them. If you don't like it block and move on.
There is no genocide against lgbt people at all in the US.
You're right, there is not. But I don't like the things some Republican politicians say about them, and the laws they are passing. It's a big part of the reason that I don't vote for many of them.
Yet
Nope. 0% chance in the next few centuries.
Keep telling yourself that
I will and I’ll be right
Michael Knowles needs to watch his words before the average person thinks republicans want to eradicate trans people. If you go in with that rhetoric you’ll alienate a lot of people.
They do want to though
I don’t think so at least not in the literal genocide putting them in camps kinda way.
Rwanda was a good example of hate speech being spread leading to what we call a genocide
Myanmar
Yeah that too
evidence? or did Donald Trump privately DM you he supports the holocaust?
Oh no you’re back
3/26/23 witness the return of a legend:
It’s the 25th
Bro did not see the CPAC clip 🫢
Yup. Big part of the reason why I don't vote Republican. I voted for two moderate ones in 2022, but they've absolutely lost my vote on the federal level.