• Mardoniush [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Common mistake, only Juche Necromancy makes liches.

          Luxembugists became LeShay after the death of our universe at the hands of the Freikorps.

          Marxist Leninists, of course, developed the Immortal Science.

          Maoists are kept alive by the constant fear of being asked to explain why they did that at a self crit session

          Leftcoms can’t die unless their death abolishes the commodity form.

          Trots split into imperceptibly different clones via mitosis.

          Anarchists consider that death is the ultimate bedtime.

  • happybadger [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    Every day I read a story which makes me think Zionists have finally reached the most depraved point a human can reach. Then the following day it seems quaint compared to the new shit they’re doing.

    What the absolute fuck.

  • biscuitswalrus
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    Did anyone read the article? The problem stated is that genocide is used so much now it’s not given the gravity that it deserves. The the problem is apathy and ambivalence. The words weight no longer carries the horrible meaning it describes.

    Smaller atrocities, ones with tens of thousands of deaths, are being called genocides, while those with hundreds of thousands of deaths are not.

    There is no ambiguity in the definition of the word, but it’s usage has been used ambiguously and has eroded the interpretation of those who hear it. In practice most can’t deny that there has been attempted genocide, but that atrocity doesn’t sound bad either, when that could mean a third of a population died is only ‘attempted genocide’.

    The problem is the word has lost its meaning and with it, using it doesn’t convey the atrocities that it’s uniquely designed to describe.

    • arabiclearner [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Ok so when China supposedly “genocides” uighurs (which has been thoroughly debunked), it’s ok to call it genocide?

      But when the word is used against what IS actually a genocide against the Palestinians, well then it’s all (in annoying reddit nerd voice): “UMm, Ackshually… we shouldn’t be using that word anymore! I AM VERY SMART!!! PLEASE FEEEMALES DATE ME!!!”

      Maybe there’s a deeper discussion to be had on when the word is appropriate to use, but this article is 100000000000000% only doing it because they are worried about the term being applied to Israel. They are not having a good faith discussion about this. They are weaponizing this sort of philosophizing to obfuscate their real objectives. fuck them, don’t engage with this obvious ploy, just make fun of them until they run away crying

    • Shinji_Ikari [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      Genocide was never defined as a kill count contest.

      It’s always been wrapped up with intent and clear delineation of the destruction of a population.