What is Genocide?

[@ns1extreme]

I always loved your channel but my respect for you increased a lot after this video. Thank you! And as for me I prefer longer deep dives into topics but the shorter videos can be nice too.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Thanks! :) Good to hear.

[@akumaking1]

@@CarneadesOfCyreneleftism/communism is definitely guilty of genocide given their behavior.

[@jamesrandall9489]

I really like the longer styles of videos. I stopped watching videos on this channel a while ago because I was frustrated by how a short they were, but I really enjoyed this one and I’d watch more of them. Doesn’t bother me at all if they are infrequent.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Great! Good to hear.

[@zsdCKanVOIJANSO]

Only a few minutes in, but I’d like it if the channel had a mix of the usual style and had a few videos like this. Videos with lots of history like this seem to warrant the deep dive. But with other topics where you are just going over concepts, that is probably unnecessary.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Thanks!

[@skeetorkiftwon]

​@@CarneadesOfCyrene If you delete comments, then eventually KZbin will delete your channel, or free thinkers will delete KZbin (we already are). Take your pick. You've already thrown down the gauntlet with your video, so, in for a penny, in for a pound. Censorship is illogical because it foments men like Locke to write, anonymously, revolutionary texts. Kind of like me telling you about declining EROEI. Eventually men aren't so comfortable being comfortable. 50% of Gaza is children. Censoring dissent won't change that. Genocide is the slaughter of people based on a cultural phenomenon such as race, religion, or creed. Unless the people with precious metal last names are involved, then its definition is in superposition. Because, "greatest ally."

[@skeetorkiftwon]

​@@CarneadesOfCyrene Declining EROEI. Coward.

[@Asankeket]

That's what I wanted to say. Seconded.

[@yqafree]

Both short and long content. I know a juggling act, but it is appreciated

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Good to hear. Thanks!

[@sachamm]

The context is so important when applying these ideas to real life. I'm sure there are valid criticisms but I think you did a pretty damn good job here. One of your best IMHO.

[@louisalexandre33]

Long format are great, thanks for your work Carneades.

[@christianbay3507]

This was an awesome video..thx for all the work you put in there.

[@FORTHEPUNCH]

This kind of long format in the videos is quite entertaining, please keep it up!

[@benross9174]

Using the word genocide in situations where it doesnt apply really devalues the term; especially when people throw it out for emotional reasons or to get a reaction. A situation can be really, really bad and tragic without having to use the most extreme/inflammetary language possible. Genocide is a very specific legal term where the most important thing is about intent. For example the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki legally aren’t a genocide; even though thats a really bad or tragic situation thats arguably worse than some actual genocides. Words ought to actually mean something; otherwise they dont matter.

[@diogo7905]

I believe that we will very much regret the complete trivialization of these terms.

[@enterthevoidIi]

But also using what you said as a way to shut down people who call something genocide is not good either.

[@benross9174]

@@enterthevoidIi If there isnt an actual genocide going on of course you shouldnt take that seriously. Its not the truth. Not even in a subjective way; its provable by law/legal terms. If there is an actual genocide going on you should obviously take that seriously. What matters is whether its true/maps on to reality or not

[@alanlu8625]

Not somebody hand-wringing about words while the bodies pile up

[@real_pattern]

would you name 3 examples?

[@RENATVS_IV]

Good idea Carneades, we need to have this discussion, without dogmas nor whether there is a genocide or not in Middle East, because that's what we have to assess

[@stretch1973]

Yes to longer videos. Thanks

[@lightandcrispier]

I’m grateful you explained so well. Thanks very much

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Thanks so much!!!

[@xxcoldsteelexx]

At 57:20, your conclusion of "yes" is not supported by your reasoning. Firstly, it seems like you're conflating "Israel" with "jews". Hamas has stated, in line with your reasoning of what is okay to oppose, that they oppose the "zionist entity", not the state of Israel no matter its form. Secondly, putting aside questions about how many civilians Israel killed with its response, it seems fairly clear that the purpose of the attack was to take hostages for exchange and to destroy Israeli military assets.

[@quintrankid8045]

Was the purpose of the attack on Oct 7th limited to those purposes? I don't think that explains all the murder and other crimes committed on that day. It also seems to me that part of the intent was to precipitate an enraged reaction and not the thoughtful reaction they got.

[@xxcoldsteelexx]

@quintrankid8045 that is incorrect. In reporting by dropsitenews from Ryan grim and Jeremy scahill, hamas states that even they were surprised by israels genocidal response. Cutting off food and water is not "thoughtful". It's fair to assume that militants went beyond the purpose of the operation into individual retributive acts, which would in fact explain the atrocities, but how much was each side responsible for is a question we will never have a full answer to

[@quintrankid8045]

@@xxcoldsteelexx Maybe read the Hamas charter and you'll see that Hamas has bad intentions. But you seem to be seriously suggesting that Israel has some obligation to supply food and water to its enemy. This is as if the Allies had some obligation to feed the Axis powers during WW2. Sorry, but this is logic I simply don't follow. No, I believe that Hamas' claim that Israel response is anything other than thoughtful is nothing more than agit-prop. If Israel had responded without thought, as they had indeed been provoked to do, then nothing would remain of Gaza.

[@quintrankid8045]

@@xxcoldsteelexx I posted a reply but ti seems to have been disappeared.

[@chrissidiras]

Thank you for this video.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Thanks for watching!

[@0xbugati]

Gallant was specifically talking about Hamas in the "human animals" quote not all Gazans

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

It is unclear who he is referring to, but I think he could easily be interpreted as referring to all Palestinians, given that seconds earlier he bragged about depriving all Palestinians, not just Hamas of badic services. He says, "We are fighting human animals" (m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/kJOzlYVpepmbec0) something which would constitute dehumanization, a key precursor of genocide regardless of if it is Hamas or Palestinians in general he is referring to.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

It is unclear who exactly he is referring to, but given that seconds before he bragged about cutting off basic services to all Palestinians in Gaza City, not just Hamas, I think it is reasonable to assume he is talking more broadly. (m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/kJOzlYVpepmbec0).

[@Pfhorrest]

Before watching the video proper yet, on the question of format preference, I generally like to have smaller, more easily digestible bits of content, at least when it's anything I need to pay actual attention to and not just background noise. But you could take a long video and break it up into a series of shorter videos and have the best of both worlds.

[@jaredgreen2363]

Ooh, animated face, how did you do it?

[@seanmuniz4651]

Link of one of the related videos you've mentioned is missing from the description box. Namely: "What is Liberalism?" Link should be between "What is the Philosophy of Race?" and "What is Ubuntu Philosophy?".

[@dalefletter2524]

Let me try to offer a constructive comment. Yes, a difficult topic demands a long form. You cannot provide both the context, data, and analysis of something as complex as genocide any other way. And I would very much enjoy more of that type. However given the complexity, even a long form video does not always give you enough time. To that end I find the short videos which give background necessary to build up toward the long form and you did a great job providing citations back to prior vids. Yet these seems to be a missing middle. The complexities of international law alone would have been a good topic for a mid-sized video. And the parts of this video could have been broken into three videos rather than all run together. Same amount of work on you but more easily digested for the less committed viewer. The break between vids offers time for reflection and time to go back to cited vids. Still, on the whole obviously great work on an incredibly difficult topic. Thank you.

[@veaglethefirst]

Video starts at 51:06

[@Sisyphus.p]

Life saver

[@pawarranger]

prop logic is easy shit

[@veaglethefirst]

@@pawarranger sound & valid iykyk

[@isamkamel]

Thank you as usual for this informative and philosophical insight into real world of evil!

[@danielnelson3136]

I agree it's a very interesting philosophical topic of genocide, and IMO it'll always be dependent on situations that make genocide far worse or lighter. For example I think that history and the passage of time does lessen the severity of genocide the more distant the event is in the past, like the Spanish settlers and the Aztec empire, and ultimately the fall of the Aztecs due to their lack of adapting to measles and chicken pox the Spanish brought, but also due to a lot of cultural differences like live human sacrifices of warriors nearby Aztec empire which the Spanish under their Christian worldview is viewed as untenable, the language barriers, and so on. In this context you could argue that due to a lot of cultural differences, and even Aztec's refusing to change their cultural practice, live human sacrifices, pissing off nearby tribes which made them reach out to the Spanish for a coalition against the Aztec empire.

[@Pfhorrest]

Regarding knowledge vs intent, the way you explain it is unclear to me: it sounded earlier like what mattered is whether an agent knew that their actions contributed to a program where *someone else* had intent to destroy a culture; but later such as when discussing removing children from sexually abusive cults, it sounds like merely knowing that their actions *will have the effect* of destroying a culture, even if *nobody* intends its destruction, would be enough. To clarify, the difference here is: - Alice doesn't intend to destroy the Charlionites, but she knows that doing this thing for Bob will help Bob to intentionally destroy the Charlionites. and - Alice doesn't intend to destroy the Charlionites, nor does anyone else, but she knows that doing this thing will have the effect of destroying Charlionites anyway.

[@treesb201]

Interesting video, thank you. When explaining the nakba you left out that Arabs were so convinced they would destroy Israel they told Palestinians to leave their homes because they would be back in a week and Israel would be gone. The term nakba refers to the humiliation Arabs experienced at losing to Jews, who they considered either second class citizens or animals. You also made no mention of how Hamas has embedded itself among the citizens and has made clear they don’t care if they die. Additionally, there’s no mention of the humanitarian aid provided by Israel and other groups that Hamas has stolen, or that they torture and kill Gazans who try to take the aid, or that aid groups have left Gaza because of Hamas. You also rely on numbers provided by Hamas, even though those numbers have been corrected and show a much smaller number of civilians have died. I think in some ways you have provided a balanced assessment but at the same time you’ve left out important details, some of which I’ve included in my comment.

[@isamkamel]

Not really. For this, you might need to look into that interview: A Pornography of Evil in Israeli school books to indoctrinate children for war. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jaPUoWmogqqJb9U

[@uptide1214]

wait, carneades is a vtuber now????

[@Eserimumin]

good work 👍

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Thanks!

[@Bryancm2792]

Pass this over to Candace Owens

[@enterthevoidIi]

you didn't really watch the video

[@jacobderin1402]

I wanted to note a couple of areas where it looks to me like you’ve confused the definition of genocide. In some places you seem to be conflating the actus reus and mens rea required for genocide. Committing an act of genocide, especially the imposition of conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of the group, is only genocide if accompanied by the specific intent to accomplish the biological annihilation of the group. So it wouldn’t be accurate to say that the UN definition incorporates Lemkin’s original understanding of the term because it explicitly excludes cultural genocide. The appellate division of the ICTY recognized this in its ruling on the Srebrenica case: “[C]ustomary international law limits the definition of genocide to those acts seeking the physical or biological destruction of all or part of the group. [A]n enterprise attacking only the cultural or sociological characteristics of a human group in order to annihilate these elements which give to that group its own identity distinct from the rest of the community would not fall under the definition of genocide.” So the conditions of life calculated to *destroy* must be calculated to biologically destroy a “part” of the group. What is “part” in this context? The court defined it in the Srebrenica case as “the alleged perpetrator intended to destroy at least a substantial part of the protected group. The determination of when the targeted part is substantial enough to meet this requirement may involve a number of considerations. The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall size of the entire group. In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration. If a specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4.” So, to sum up, you’d need to show that the genocidal act (deportation, forcible transfer of children, etc) aimed at the physical destruction of at least enough of the group to endanger its survival as such. So for instance, the deportation of the Rohingya in Myanmar is an act of genocide only if the perpetrators are attempting thereby to physically annihilate the protected group. Merely scattering or displacing them is not enough. With regard to the First Arab-Israeli War/ the “Nakba”, this requirement makes clear that the actions of Jewish groups were not genocide. Removing a people from a place, even by violence, is not genocide unless the intent is to physically destroy them. Here you’ve conflated ethnic cleansing and genocide. There’s an additional question about whether this was a state policy or the acts of individual commanders. So it’s not even entirely clear that the requisite mental state existed for criminal responsibility. You also neglected to mention that the Arab armies attacked first - a fairly important point. We can argue about whether this bar is too high but nevertheless it is the bar. Viz a viz Israel and Hamas, it seems clear that Hamas intended the physical annihilation of as many Jewish Israelis as possible. Their complete destruction wasn’t possible but, again, from the Srebrenica appeal: “The historical examples of genocide also suggest that the area of the perpetrators’ activity and control, as well as the possible extent of their reach, should be considered. Nazi Germany may have intended only to eliminate Jews within Europe alone; that ambition probably did not extend, even at the height of its power, to an undertaking of that enterprise on a global scale. Similarly, the perpetrators of genocide in Rwanda did not seriously contemplate the elimination of the Tutsi population beyond the country’s borders. The intent to destroy formed by a perpetrator of genocide will always be limited by the opportunity presented to him. While this factor alone will not indicate whether the targeted group is substantial, it can - in combination with other factors - inform the analysis.” So, Hamas’ intent to physically annihilate Jewish Israeli communities on the border with Gaza constitutes genocidal intent once we define the relevant geographic area as their effective zone of control during the killings and establish their purpose to physically annihilate the protected group within it. From public statements, military plans and acts on the day, this seems almost impossible to dispute. Israel’s actions in Gaza, however, are far more complicated because they happened in the context of an armed conflict where multiple motives may have been at play. I’m aware of no international case law parsing multiple motives in the genocide context. Very few such cases have gone to trial for obvious reasons. But we may doubt that Israeli leaders formed the requisite intent based upon the simple observation that the killings stopped once they established military control. Unlike Hamas, the IDF didn’t round up Palestinian civilians and shoot them in the streets once military resistance ended. The most plausible case for genocide would be the bombing campaign and the possibility that it intended the annihilation of Gazans “in part.” But it would be a strange genocide indeed where the perpetrator intended the annihilation of substantial numbers of the protected group, risked international condemnation to kill then from the air, but then stopped short of killing them on the ground. What’s more reasonable to infer is that Israeli leaders intended the destruction of Hamas (a political, unprotected group) and recklessly disregarded the impact on civilians. This may be morally reprehensible in a variety of ways but it isn’t specific intent.

[@SuperKripke]

Zionists pretending like genocide wasn't a word people used outside of the Geneva convention. The use of paramilitary groups to go from village to village to murder and remove the native population to make lebensraum for your newly forming state and impose your invented language is genocide. Similarly indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas blockaded by your nation and forcing starvation and pestilence is genocide. The only remaining consideration is the access of journalists and independent fact gatherers to determine the scale but Israel is not escaping the common use of the word genocide (as is the the case with China or Myanmar). People aren't stupid. If you are good faith interested I recommend you read South afric'a submission for a fuller picture of Israel's atrocities.

[@real_pattern]

i'd also problematize how you handled 'indigeneity' here. it's partially correct, but missing crucial elaboration. 'indigène' is a specifically french colonial word that refers to racial inferiority and indicates a legal lack of civil and political rights. it was a legal term instituted by the code de l'indigénat in 1887 that not only discriminated against, but also criminalized, certain behaviors of local populations (such as going out at night or looking disdainfully at a french person). zionism is a 19th century political movement, inspired by european ethnic-nationalist & colonial movements of the time, believing, like these movements, that every 'nationality' must have a defined territory for its own exclusive use. so the zionists decided that jews everywhere were not actually nationals of their countries, but rather an entirely different national group who could never truly become french, english or any other nationality. they believed that they should all leave and form their own state in palestine, displacing the prior inhabitants. the generic meaning of indigenous is 'originating from a place', eg. humans are indigenous to africa. but most of the time, when referring to groups of people, we use it in a different way. some groups who are commonly called 'indigenous' are; -native north americans -australian aboriginal/torres strait islander people -the many different native groups of central & south america.. some groups who are ~never called 'indigenous' are; -french people -dutch people -german people -italian people -anglo-saxon englishmen -japanese people... the reason is that to be 'indigenous' in the way that the word is by far the most commonly applied to people means 'to currently be colonized'. this is true even though most people don't realize that they're using the term this way, while in practice, they do so anyway. this is why we don't often call germans or italians... 'indigenous', despite many of them technically originate from the country they live in. according to the UN secretariat of the parliament of the permanent forum on indigenous issues, “Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system." according to the ILO's convention; criteria for indigeneous people are; "descent from populations, who inhabited the country or geographical region at the time of conquest, colonisation or establishment of present state boundaries. They retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions, irrespective of their legal status." so 'indigenous' is a status imposed upon people & polities as a result of ongoing colonialism, not simply "i think i'm related to people who lived here a long time ago so i'm indigenous". this has nothing to do with ancient ancestry and everything to do with a group's continued status in relation to colonialism & their position in the dominant society in the state whose borders they happen to live within. indigenous claims to land are not based on esoteric appeals to DNA, nor to ancient history. they are based on a very simple notion that is quite similar to most territorial/independence claims in the present world system: "we are the exact same group of people this land was stolen from, and you are the same state/a clear continuation of the state that took it from us. we have been forced to live within your present state borders & under your oppressive rule, while continuously asserting the wrong that you specifically have done to us. we never ceded the land you took from us, and we never consented to it, or us, being a part of your state. so we want the land, or at least a part of it back, and whether we choose independence or autonomy is our business." it's nothing resembling "i think i'm related to somebody who lived somewhere i've never been 3000 years ago, so if i move there it's mine and i can do anything i want to people living there." even if some people in question were related to some other ancient local, or their religious text said that the land was 'theirs', that's not even a remotely valid justification for ethnic supremacist colonialism. at least according to most reasonable people.

[@andreasbrey6277]

I really appreciated the quality and concise discussion, though I am kinda frightened because of the talking letter-man ;-) One objection: The influence of church systems and its implied legal and social pressures. You are NOT 'free' to change your 'belief' like a pair of socks and therefore ARE born with it to a very certain degree. It is an inelastic good so to speak.

[@carlosvillaseca7928]

In October I was surprised some groups were calling it a genocide a few days after the war started and I think it is wonderful that someone finally tries to discuss why they might consider it a genocide. It is interesting that somebody may use the word genocide without thinking of killing. Words migrate in meaning and I've always heard it used with mass killings. The word genocide has a significant trace of death. The whole Gaza war has been a surprise to me how it has been reported and discussed. The bombing of a hospital was proved to be a bombing of a parking lot by Hamas. The hospitals never ran out of the fuel and medicine that the news was so concerned by. The pits filled with corpses was filmed that Hamas did it before Israel came. And the amount of food going into Gaza from Israel has been proven to not be causing a famine. It is the movement of the food to the people that cause the problem. You can even watch the videos of Hamas stealing from the supply convoys. I am surprised that no matter how much can be shown, when people want to believe something, their minds can do everything to deny the physical proof. And why would the Israelis want to starve Palestinian children? You could just as easily carpet bomb the refugee camp if you want to kill. Not that I am suggesting it. Sure there are supply chain problems in a war--but maybe some Hamas media manipulation also. I do commend Carneades for taking on this difficult topic and attempting to look at it from both sides.

[@nuhafathima3995]

It's not hamas who bombed the parking lot. At first, israel said that their missle is fired in a hospital cuz there was hamas inside in it. Then they said hamas fired it. Ans then they said it was a mistake. And u know what moat of the hospitals in gaza are now bombed. They completely distroyed al shifa hospital by saying there was hamas basement under it. But they couldnt find it. Also they have tourtured the doctors amd nurses and patience who were in the al shifa hospital. So many of them have died bcz of the lack food and medicine, cuz israel's siege. You said hospitals never ran out of fuel. They did. So many civilians have died because of it. Including n ew born babies. Have u seen the trucks waiting on rafah boarder cuz they are not allowed to enter. Some countries including usa started air drop food. Some of the airdropped food even killed people. Before couple of days, an airdropped package destroyed a tent. Have u seen videos of israelis demolishing the foods packages that are supposed to go to gaza? So yes there's a genocide is going on in gaza. You are probably watching the western mainstream medias and their lies. So you should see this issue also from palestinians perspective. If you really wanna what is happening in gaza, you should check out the instagram accounts of gazan people and journalist. U can see how's their everyday life and how they are surviving. U can see why there's always people protesting on the streets and campuses for a ceasefire. Cuz we are seeing the children without limb and arms everyday. That should not be happening. The mainstream media probably blames hamas for butchering of palestinains civilans by israel. Israel is committing every war crimes possible and get away with it. Ask urself why! Also forgive for my english🙌🏻

[@quintrankid8045]

Hamas and their allies are desperate to have a propaganda win and they will throw anything at the wall to see what sticks.

[@real_pattern]

regarding genetic ancestry, the current evidence base supports more the hypothesis that the overwhelming majority of contemporary jewish people aren't of canaanite, but rather much later european descent. the majority of the zionist settlers are genetically unrelated to the canaanites, whereas this is not the case for the majority of the arab people in the region.

[@quintrankid8045]

So what?

[@real_pattern]

@@quintrankid8045 so what are they doing there illegally settling and colonizing land that was populated by an indigenous population for long before zionism even began forming in europe? lmao.

[@luszczi]

Getting a strong uncanny valley feel from the animated head. Not a fan.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Yeah, there was a reason we put it small in the corner. Just trying out new things.

[@Ninja9JKD]

Let's cover democide next?

[@clementdato6328]

Why are nationality, ethnicity, religion and race special among other constructs in society? 16:36 also, it is difficult to argue that you don’t want to eliminate the cult if it is literally a cult. You are not just protecting children, but also other human as well.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Good questions. The problem is that the line between a cult and a religion is blurry. And Some of the historical genocides that are covered are committed because someone claimed that a particular religion was a cult. The Christian missionaries that took Native children from their families thought they were saving those children, but, by some definitions they were destroying those cultures. The question would be, what makes a religion sufficiently immoral such that destroying it is not genocide? There have been religions that practice human sacrifice. Is genocide against them (perhaps of type 5) morally permissible? There are other religions/ethnic groups that engage in things that could be considered child abuse (e.g. FGM, gay conversion therapy, etc.). Does that justify removing children from such a culture, even if it has the consequence of destroying that culture? Are harmful cultures really worth saving? Who gets to decide what makes a culture harmful, since everyone that has committed a genocide, probably thinks the culture they are trying to destroy is harmful.

[@vhawk1951kl]

To start there is no such thing as race and intellectual algebra or substituting one unknown and undefined for another unknown/undefined such as x=y=x where neither x nor y are defined or ascribed a value assists no-one.. *All* war is one grouping or another with one or another set of characteristics trying to wipe out another, thus*All* war is pick any elastic neologism for sin or diddums-doesn't-like-it, you please. The sooner that pointless waste of space the UN is abolished the better -It is no more than a toothless talking shop and make- work for the otherwise employable. There is not and cannot be, any such thing as international law because law is a function of a sovereign(which means subject to *No* authority whatsoever) and there is not a nation country or people on this planet that does not suppose itself to be both sovereign and independent and there is a shortage of international sovereigns to the exact tune of *any-at-all*. So long as you are not entirely witles it is plain as day that national sovereignty and international law are mutually exclusive ideas. What the fanatical followers of that queer religion modernism want to do is elasticate the definition of that neologism genocide so that will fit any sin they do not like. Although there is no verb to genocide(and be grateful for that small mercy) in the second war the Nazis wanted to genocide anyone they did not like and then the allies wanted to genocide the Nazis and as by-catch, the German people and no -one was bleating about genocide then. The modernist loons and all beings would do well to look at the tuquoque fallacy and se if the can understand why it is a fallacy. Reflective justification of the but-please-miss-johnny-hit-me-first variety is infantile and helps no-one what to do when countries or peoples want to go in for mutual genocide or war? First off get rid of all that good/evil, right/wrong morals/ethics, religious mumbic jum, which only serves to stupefy those that go in for it. Genocide is a neologism it can mean anything you damn please which makes it effectively meaningless and little more than a cognate of Super_Sin and there is no doubt that the fanatical followers of that queer religion modernism are utterly obsessed with sin which stupefies them in that all that morality ethics nonsense is merely reactions of of the emotional(like/dislike) function or part of their common presences which makes them incapable of impartial(not from *only_one* part) reason. It is stupefying foolishness to dress up what are no more than subjective relative and temporary mechanical-automatic reactions of that on function or part as if they were not no more than subjective relative and temporary mechanical-automate ructions of that on function or part yo which men(human beings/dreaming machines) are such abject slaves they simply *cannot be indifferent to what in reality are no more than no more than subjective relative and temporary mechanical-automate reactions of that one function or part If *It reacts dislike then everything else goes out of the window and to the devil.Men(human beings/dreaming machines have many other functions than just that one emotional(like/dislike) function which is their god, lord, master- pick any one you please Are they remotely interested in freeing themselves from that slavery? To ask that question is to answer it.

[@vondas1480]

@@CarneadesOfCyrene there’s nothing special about a culture, it’s literally just exclusive social club that some delusional and often racist people have arbitrarily elevated. I would feel more pity for an anime club being disbanded than any so called “cultural g enocide”. If it’s not targeting race, gender or sexual orientation it’s perfectly fine.

[@waderutherford9083]

Weren't the original Tasmanian natives and the Emishi (arguably) wiped out?

[@Pfhorrest]

Re the inclusion of religion among group categories, and maybe you'll get to this soon, it seems like language is just as mutable and voluntary as religion is: kids aren't born speaking any particular language, but they do just grow up learning to speak that way without really making any choice about it (as most people do with religion too), and they could choose to stop speaking that language (although of course it would take some effort, as it would to change religion).

[@r0b0tcat]

You may want to review your own video on the Bottleneck Fallacy. 😂

[@sully9937]

DISCLAIMER: I only watched the last 10 minutes Seems to make little sense that Hamas attacks could constitute a "counter genocide". Surely the power imbalance creates an asymmetry in how the definition is applied? Also not sure how fair calling Al Aqsa flood an attack on civilians is. Firstly the argument could be made that settlers aren't civilians. But even assuming that they are its become pretty clear now that it was a military expedition that went haywire with many random people joining in on the violence. Also, the allegations of sexual violence haven't been substantiated even a bit. You should have mentioned this. Overall this just seems like a forced both sides bad take that no one would ever believe regarding South Africa now. That one side is backed by the strongest global empire and the other is literally occupied by them, the idea that this opressed side could commit a genocide on their opressors is just silly. If going from no rights to rights means making Israel unlivable then how can this be considered genocidal? The more i think the more this makes no sense. And if our theory of genocide doesnt account for this power imbalance then its useless.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

A lack of power does not make genocide permissible. Attempting to exterminate an ethnic group from a place is genocide, even if they tried to do it to you first, and even if you are less effective at it than they are. Simply because you are oppressed or out of power, it does morally not allow you to commit a genocide against those who oppress you. The goal of liberation does not justify the means of extermination. Let's look at a few reasons that this is. First, many groups that have committed genocides have claimed to be the oppressed by the group they committed genocide against. Just look at Nazi propaganda that paints Jewish people as the powerful ones controlling society. Look at the economic power still held by Tutsi's before the Rwandan genocide. Early US propaganda against the Native Americans painted them as a powerful foe, and the colonies as the struggling underdog. If genocide is permissible if you believe you are the underdog, then most genocides would be permissible. Genocide is hard enough to prosecute as it is, and you want to make it more difficult? Israel claims it has less power given the opposition of its neighbors to its existence. This is not to claim that they are right, simply to claim that if we include "power" as a requirement for genocide, then many fewer things would be able to be counted as genocide, and many more people would think they are justified in committing genocide because they believed they were the oppressed ones, (even if they weren't). A second way to see why genocide cannot be permissible even when there are different power dynamics it to look at murder. Do you think that you are morally justified in hunting down and killing someone if they killed a member of your family? Maybe you do because Hollywood has glorified revenge vigilante killings in action movies, but that does not make it right. Kant has good reasons for this: it is not generalizable. If you are justified in killing someone that killed your brother, they may be justified in having killed brother, because your brother killed their sister. And their son might be justified in killing you because you killed their father. The cycle of violence continues without stop. That is why we need independent institutions to stop these things. I agree that in this case the international institutions are deeply broken and the US’s support for Israel prevents them from working effectively. But that does not make genocide morally permissible. Third, and closely connected to this idea of cyclical violence is the point that a “counter genocide” will never lead to peace. You are making the case that this is justified because it is the only way to get liberation or rights for the people. But this is problematic for multiple reasons. First, it is not the only way. There are ways to provoke international outrage without stating that your goal is the elimination of an entire people. There are many military options that don’t require the targeting of civilians. South Africa was able to throw off apartheid by protest and international pressure. Second, violence against civilians does not lead to peace and will only further entrench the forces that want to ensure violence continues instead of building a coalition on both sides towards a peaceful resolution. Liberation will not be achieved by worsening the atrocities committed. That will only strengthen the forces on each side that do not want the conflict to end. Fourth, the issue with conditioning genocide on power is that if a group out of power starts a genocide and is successful in it, at some point, they become in power and at some point, that genocide would therefore become immoral. However, genocides are hard to stop once they have started. As a prerequisite, the people need to be fed propaganda arguing that their oppressors are inhuman and deserve to die. That belief becomes entrenched and simply because you started winning the war, few will think that you should stop. The Hutus and the Tutsis are a clear example of this. The Hutus were oppressed by the Tutsis for a long time, so when they took power and eventually started murdering their former oppressors, they thought they were justified. How many innocent people needed to die before the Tutsis were no longer powerful enough to be considered oppressors? Fifth, is the problem of children. You might make the case that all adults in a society are complicit in the oppression of a people (though I would argue this is wrong since there are plenty of adults in any society that are protesting or actively opposed to their government’s policies). But that argument cannot apply to children. Children have no power in a society, even if they are born into the most powerful community on earth, a toddler still cannot contribute to oppression, nor can they be held liable for it. Yet genocide requires the elimination of children too. That all said, it does seem that greater power confers greater responsibility. I don’t think that genocide is ever morally justifiable. But the more power that a group has in a situation, the worse the crime is. But that does not mean that groups out of power can’t commit genocide.

[@JadeVanadiumResearch]

@@CarneadesOfCyrene I don't think their point was that a lack of power makes genocide permissible, I think their point was that a lack of power makes it impossible. To give an extreme example, I would say that an attempted genocide in which 0 people are affected doesn't really deserve to be called a genocide, even if there was intent. This is obviously not the case with Hamas, since they have affected thousands, but it's to illustrate the point that the magnitude of impact seems to matter a lot for whether a particular label is applicable. I definitely agree with you that attempted genocide is reprehensible even if it ends in the absolute failure of the perpetrators, but I also don't think it's responsible to equivocate crimes of massively differing magnitudes. If we are interested in reducing harm as much as possible, it's of paramount importance to recognize and analyze the material reality of power imbalances. An attempted genocide in which 1000 people die is already an atrocity, and yet a genocide in which 30000 people die is clearly 30 times worse. Time and energy spent pushing against the latter saves 30 times more lives than time and energy spent pushing back against the former. The power imbalance between Israel and Hamas really is this severe. If someone spends 2 minutes criticizing the crimes of Hamas, then I will praise them, if and only if they also spend another 58 minutes criticizing Israel and the IDF. Similarly, if someone writes 6 paragraphs criticizing Hamas, I will praise them, if and only if they write another 180 paragraphs criticizing Israel and the IDF.

[@sully9937]

@CarneadesOfCyrene the guy above me is correct. I did not say a counter genocide is permissible based on power imbalance, I'm proposing it's IMPOSSIBLE for a less powerful group to genocide a more powerful group. Not that the moral status of genocide changes. This is why i said a counter genocide is a nonsensical concept. If a resistance force becomes more powerful than their oppressive force and continues to slaughter, then they enter the realm of theoretically being capable of genocide. As for how we decide this, I also think you unnecessarily obfuscate what power means. We can be crudely material in this sense. The Palestinian claim that they are under an apartheid, a blockade, and a genocide is born out in the material conditions. Israel's claim that their neighbours are hostile could simply be a state pathology in theory. But even if it wasn't, this victimhood of a power imbalance has nothing to do with the Palestinians! It's so tertiary and convoluted an argument to say, "Egypt, Iran and Lebanon scare us, so we must massacre this fourth population of people." It is a much weaker claim of a lack of power than the Palestinian claim. Finally, violent resistance absolutely works and has worked throughout history. Proposing that only non violent diplomacy ends conflicts is skipping to the end result without understanding what got each party there. Almost every resolution is preceded by bloodshed which moves the margins in X or Y sides direction before compromise. South Africa doesn't end apartheid as quickly or at all without violent resistance. Was the Haitian slave revolt wrong? Was Nat Turner wrong to violently resist (in abstraction away from his killing of women/children)? But I suspect you don't disagree, you'd just not categorise this as genocide. In which case Hamas cannot be accused of it either.

[@quintrankid8045]

@@sully9937 What about a desire to commit genocide? What about an attempt even if you have no chance of success?

[@its_allen_mori.xy3]

[@j.r.8176]

Everyone asks "what is genocide" but no one asks "HOW is genocide" 😔

[@quintrankid8045]

What does HOW is genocide mean?

[@shaikazaz9157]

Fact check: The first genocide you said israel has made, the nakbah, began when Arab nations like Syria, Iraq Jorden, Egypt, including the Palestinians, rejected the UN 2 states' proposal and declared a war, from all sides, on israel. Indeed israel has occupied land, but this is not genocide. For the claim that israel is doing genocide in the current war with hamas, I will ask this: israel has 20% Arabs citizens which more then 90% of them define them selves as Palestinians also for all the plastianias in the west bank israel is doing nothing of thrthings you mentioned that israel is doing in this the current war which considers as acts of genocide. so is israel doing a genocide on Palestinians? Indeed there is a terrible war in Gaza, also innocent people are dieing . but if you accept the idea that a group of people can defend them selves and fight against other group, which addressing most of there resources to eliminate the first group, then ask your self how can it be done in the Gaza war if hamas use civil facilities as military bases, because they are civil facilities. please chek the bases that were located in under hospitals, schools and un facilities. one last thing: israel has never ever targeted workers of humanitarian organizations. but Indeed 2 things has happened, the first I's that the Idf has mistakenly killed people from humanitarian organizations in 2 tragic accidents during the war. the second, which acciur many times, israel has tagelty killed terrorist which also worked in Un organization like unra. there are many videos of unra workers which fought with hamas, and as hamas fighters in October 7th. you can check everything I noted here.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Let’s speak to each of these points in turn. First on the Nakba. The United Nations announced a plan to remove a people from a place without the agreement of those people. That constitutes a genocide. Just because they announced their intentions ahead of time and got buy-in from the international community does not mean it was not genocide. Think of it this way. If the UN decided that the state of Israel would be eliminated tomorrow, and the Palestinian and Arab armies marched in and executed or expelled all of the Jewish people there, that would be a genocide. Even if other countries came to Israel’s aid and started fighting against the Palestinians. Even if it had the support of the entire international community. Even if the UN offered Israel a deal that they rejected. It would still be genocide. Arab-Israelis face substantial persecution from Israeli authorities including arrests, interrogations, expulsions, and threats from Israeli defense forces. Remember that enacting the conditions that would destroy a part or whole of a group constitutes genocide. Also remember that the elimination of a group from a place is sufficient to constitute genocide. The Nazis didn’t need to try to kill all the Jews in America to commit genocide against them. Just all the Jews in Germany. Similarly, attacking all the Palestinians in Gaza is sufficient to constitute genocide, even if there were not active attacks against the Palestinians in the West Bank. Next, let’s talk about self-defense. If someone invades your home and attacks you, you might be justified in killing them. But would you be justified in marching into their home and murdering their children? Probably not. Would you be justified in destroying the homes of everyone in their neighborhood? Certainly not. Listen to the rhetoric of Israeli politicians. They don’t just want to kill Hamas, they want to kill every Palestinian. They claim they are all guilty. They claim they are human animals, have called for bombing without mercy. That is what makes this genocide. Finally, let’s talk about humanitarian workers. Israel has killed over 250 humanitarian workers over the course of the war. Sure, Israel claims that these were all accidents, but it is unlikely that would admit to committing war crimes. Human Rights Watch has documented 8 separate instances where the IDF purposely targeted humanitarian convoys and premises in Gaza despite being provided with the coordinates of those groups. This coupled with the refusal to allow food aid into the country with the goal of creating a famine is clearly genocidal. Also, there is no evidence that any members of UNRWA were party to the October 7th attack, beyond the Israeli unjustified assertion. Seen another way, this is a method used to demonize humanitarian workers to justify the Israeli government’s attacks on them and further contribute to the genocide.

[@shaikazaz9157]

for your first point: in the video you claimed that the nakba genocide has been done by israel. now you claim that the un declaration is the act of genocide. so I think you should correct yourself in video. as for the Arab Israelis. look I live in israel there are so many counter examples of Arab israelies how define them selves as Palestinians, which succeeds well in the Israeli society. you can see it in the high tech industry, wealth care, economics, and domestic tourism and all over the sectors, maybe except the military. there also examples which justifi a claim of discrimination, but it is not built in the institution. I think it is the same when black people claim for discrimination in the US. I think all over the world you can see discrimination between one ethnic group against the other. Indeed this is not justification but it is still different from genocide. Also regard to some of the things that I believe you talked about by some of the Israelis politicians, yes they are bad and can be, some cases, considered to be encouraging genocide, this is a shame for israel indeed and I hope they won't reelected ( israel IS democracy), but the israel official policy is not close to genocide even if we judge by the things that israel is doing in Gaza. Regarding to idf acts in Gaza. first israel is indeed (and I'm 100% support this will) tring to eliminate ALL hamas terrorists, this is a official declaration which is supported by the US and other countries (including some Arab ones). giving that this goal it self is not considered to be a genocide. we need to focus our arguments if israel is acutely doing so in the field. now, I know that innocent children died in Gaza by the idf, and I and many other israelies are sorry for that. but the thing is that it mostly hamas's blame (also some israel blame again mistake, look for how many idf solders were killed by the idf itself) when military bases are located in civil facilities so civilians will die that is a claim in probability theory. for last claim I will say that if you deny the fact the humanitarian organizations worker like unrwa didn't participate in the October 7th attack I can't argue with you. I think you should re-investigate this issue before you publish claims based on lies or ignorance in your videos. BTW, except this poor video, I really like your channel. so I will happy to keep watching your channel.

[@vondas1480]

@@CarneadesOfCyreneinb4 evicting tenets is a g enocide I’m glad for this video showing why the word is meaningless . “Moving people out of a place” is not something worth getting worked up over, destroying cultures in 99.9% of cases is a good thing. Unless it’s violent+racist g enocide there is nothing morally wrong.

[@Gordy-io8sb]

Sneaky sneaky.

[@lukasmiller8531]

I strongly disagree. I usually think your videos are of really good quality, but here, after building almost an hour to the main point, you don’t actually justify anything. I don’t think you can establish intent by using 3 random quotes. There is no indiscriminate bombing, otherwise the ratio of civilian to hamas casualties would not be 4:1 - 8:1, it would be way higher. This is a horrific conflict that needs to stop, and I don’t claim the IDF is acting perfectly, but this is almost to be expected in a highly urban conflict where one party deliberately hides amongst the civilian population. This is horrible and must stop. But if this war is a genocide, every war is.

[@enterthevoidIi]

Yes there is indiscriminate bombing obviously. And you're only explanation is that the number would be much higher if it were indiscriminate. Based on what? That's a completely arbitrary statement that could be refuted by simply saying that the ratio would be lower if it were not indiscriminate. No, not every war is genocide but this attack on civilians definitely is.

[@lukasmiller8531]

@@enterthevoidIi If you (or this channel) thinks there is indiscriminate bombing, it is on you to prove this, not simply claim it. High numbers casualties alone doesn't prove that the bombing is indiscriminate. And why would the ration not be a good argument? If the bombing was random, one would expect way worse ratios, considering the ratio of civilian population in general to hamas fighters

[@enterthevoidIi]

​@@lukasmiller8531 Well, the problem is not that it cannot be proved. (it can, it's more than obvious - for example, in the first few months, more civilians, especially kids, were killed than in any other assault in modern warfare over such a short time). The problem is that gen0c-ide apologists such as yourself will claim it's not happening no matter how strong and clear the evidence is. Again, your argument is completely arbitrary. It's used to deflect, not to prove anything. Other than that, you've got nothing.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Happy to debate and talk through disagreements. That is what we are here for. A couple thoughts: First, remember that genocide does not require killing, just forced displacement (creating the conditions that make it impossible for life to continue in that place). The indiscriminate bombing has led to forced displacement of close to the entirety of the population. Netanyahu has refused to come up with a plan for Gaza after the war and there are indications that Isreal intends to annex at least part of the territory, completing the genocide of removing a people from a place. The share of Hamas causualties to civilian causualities is disputed, and President Herzog has claimed that the entire nation is responsible for the attacks, so I don't know if Isreal's assessment of who is a combatant should be trusted. Further, we can't draw a particular line between the ratio of civilians vs. combatants, meaning something is a genocide. The ratio of military personnel to civilians killed in WWII was 1:2, yet no one in their right mind would argue against the claim that at least one if not several genocides were committed in that war. In terms of intent, those were merely a few quotes because we would be here all day if I cited them all. There are many more, including from religious leaders, journalists, and other professionals throughout the country advocating for genocide. Soldiers boast of exterminating the cockroaches, including bragging about killing families, mothers, and children, taking pride in the destruction of homes, and desecrating places of worship. Read the UNHRC's report for citations for all these claims. Is all war genocide? I don't think so. It likely comes down to intent. Are you trying to "Bomb without distinction!!... flatten Gaza. Without Mercy! This time no room for mercy!" as Isreali politicians have ordered troops to do, then it is.

[@enterthevoidIi]

@@lukasmiller8531 the problem is not that I cannot prove it (it is more than obvious). The problem is that not matter how much proof there is, you will claim it's not happening.

[@InventiveHarvest]

I liked this video even though the topic is dismal. But, that often is the case with the world and we need to talk about it I am going to discuss intent in regards to being sufficient and/or necessary for genocide. Sufficient - if the extermination of a people is called for, but there is no plan to enact the extermination, is that genocide or does a plan need to accompany intent? What if the person calling for extermination has enough public sway that the extermination might be enacted by their followers even if they did not specify a plan? Sometimes these lines are not easy to draw. Necessary - When a government enacts socialism, causing mass starvation is that genocide even if their foolish intent was to create some type of utopia? Often starvation disproportionally some groups more than others. Right now, Milei is attempting to move Argentina into a more free market economy. While this should work in the long run, he did warn that things would get worse during the transition. Again, these lines are hard to draw.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

The unintended consequences question is an interesting one. Mao's great leap forward comes to mind. If you think intent is required, then it would not qualify. If you think knowledge is sufficient, that is a harder question to answer. Some movements towards communism have led to horrible death tolls, other movements towards democratic socialism have not (see Scandinavian countries). So should a leader know whether their actions will go to far and tip over into a massive extinction? The answer is likely nuanced and specific to the country, the leader, and the specific proposal.

[@nienke7713]

I think the original definition by Lemkin is better than the legalistic one adopted by the UN. The focus on culture is very important, and whilst mass murder of members of a cultural group is certainly a way to get it done, it's certainly not the only way. Race, nationality, religion, and politics are all potential factors in culture, and as such they are relevent insofar as they are cultural distinctions. A racial/national/religious/political group may be targeted due to its links to a culture. But culture isn't perfectly linked to those things, for instance many people who have stopped believing in a religion they have been part of for a significant part of their life choose to maintain cultural elements from that religion despite not believing anymore, and they may even pass those cultural traditions down to their children. And in general it's important to make a distinction between the culture and whatever it's linked to. Things like abusing children, discrimination/marginalisation/persecution/mistreatment/abuse if marginalised people, and power structures are not cultural elements, so taking meadures to prevent those or protect against them isn't genocidal. But things such as banning people from wearing certain clothing that has cultural significance is a way to commit genocide without ever attempting to cause the death of anyone.

[@vondas1480]

Got it, telling someone to remove their swastica is genocide. What a meaningless term.

[@nienke7713]

@@vondas1480 if by swastika you mean the original symbol (with orthogonal orientation) as used in various Asian cultures, then yes, forcibly taking that from them is genocide. If you mean the Nazi Hakenkreuz (diagonal orientation) then no, that's not a cultural symbol, it's the logo of a hate movement that committed genocide.

[@vondas1480]

​@@nienke7713 You finding it distasteful doesn't make it not part of German culture, and objectively it was a national symbol which you stated is a protected category. And if you want to go the route of saying being hateful/genocidal disqualifies you as a culture then there would be no cultures at all except in the last few decades (which I'm fine with, as it excludes muslims and p*lestinines)

[@nienke7713]

@@vondas1480 no, it's not a German national symbol, it's not part of German culture, it was the symbol of the Nazi Party, and that's not culture in any way

[@vondas1480]

@@nienke7713 ah yes Germany had no national flag between 1935-1945. And who are you to tell millions of Germans what is and isn’t their own culture? I may want them bombed for their culture but by your own definition you’re the one committing genocide by claiming there’s doesn’t exist.

[@captainstrangiato961]

Thank you for being so brave to make this video. I know you will lose followers for this. I do not support Hamas, but Israel's actions are horrific and systemically worse. I hope deeply, from the river to the sea, that Palestine will be free!

[@SaifurMohsin]

This needs to be taught in Israeli schools

[@silent_stalker3687]

Sir that would just increase the child abuse rates. Think of the children

[@vhawk1951kl]

Are children not already stuffed full with religious mublic jum of the sort drivelled by that fool religious fanatic. there is *No_magic* in the neologism genocide which the loon seems to suppose to be some sort of super_sin. What fanatical folowers of that queer religion modernism want to do is to keep afjusting their whooly arbitrary and artificial definitions to suit anything they don't like, they being the abject slaves of that one function Wr is try to kill or capture or otherwise oppress a group known as the enemy thus all wars are genocide and if all wars are genocide and if eveything and anything you please is genocide then *Nothing* is genocide. Truly religion is the great stupefier of men(human beings/ dreaming machines) I*Everything* is a sin, the *Nothing is a sin but the fanatical followers of that fool religion modernism are so obsessed with sin that it completely stupefies them-as the author of that drivel illustrates.

[@skeetorkiftwon]

​@@vhawk1951kl It's pretty illegible, bud. I don't read emotional.

[@vhawk1951kl]

@@skeetorkiftwon You obtained your law degree at which university titch? Illegal means contrary to the provisions of a criminal statute enacted by a sovereign. Which criminal statute enacted by which sovereign have you in mind little elsie? No law yer you titch. let's face it you Elsies - the Lower Classes are not exactly notorious for their wits and erudition,and you in particular are clearly wholly innocent of any sort of intellectual ability or accomplishment, which is why your best and only shot is rather feeble pious bleating about that of which you have neither knowledge or experience.Go back to the shallow end little Elsie.

[@eduardtarniceriu102]

By Palestine society is practised

[@vondas1480]

Only racial, and NOT cultural, religious, political, or even national g enocides is immoral. As only race is immutable and carries no judgement on a person beliefs. You can create a nation, let’s make one up called “palestine” that stands for the oppression of women, if you choose to align yourself with such a place I don’t see a problem with your neighbor destroying your home and replacing your country with one that has better policies. The same is true for culture, I hate my culture because it is barbaric so I reject it, anyone else can do the same.

[@homiespaghetti1522]

So because you've arbitrarily decided which cultures are bad, it's okay to cause unprecedented suffering upon the civilians of said culture in the means of "cleansing" them? Nice definitely not psychopathic at all

[@vondas1480]

⁠@@homiespaghetti1522ya? How did you arbitrarily decide “cleansing” was wrong? Did you use some kind of moral framework? Kind of similar to the one I use to judge cultures? Are you too much of a coward to criticize large groups? And what’s special about culture? There is no meaningful difference between a culture and a political club (except that it’s somehow acceptable to indoctrinate your children into joining). And like any political organization some are evil and should be destroyed. Here I’ll create a culture right now, it’s called “paleztinian” culture, we think human trafficking is great, do not criticize us, ok? See how ridiculous you sound.

[@zyansheep]

What makes racial genocide immoral but not the other ones? Do you have some particular attachment to genetic diversity but not cultural/ideological diversity?

[@vondas1480]

@@zyansheep I explained it in my comment and if you sort by new you can see my reply to the other person Basically you have no say in your race and it communicates nothing about you as an individual. You can say “I’m a European” and I would know nothing about and have no reason to wish you ill. Say “I’m an Irish catholic” or “I’m Amish” or “I’m a German NatSoc” or “I’m muslim” and I can make plenty of judgements about you. Genetic diversity serves a practical purpose, “cultural diversity” is Inevitably a mockery of itself, it’s tolerating the the intolerant until there’s no tolerance for anyone.

[@nienke7713]

Did you even watch the video? The person who originally coined the term was all about culture. The reason race is an important factor is because there are often links between race and culture, just as there are links between nationality and culture, religion and culture, and in some cases even political ideology and culture. And whilst you are able to choose to change elements of your culture, you cannot choose what culture you were born into, and the attempt to destroy a culture is exactly what genocide is all about. Culture is not the same as views, though, it's things like traditions, rituals, holidays, customs, foods, and stories. Just look at people who come from a religious background but no longer believe, and you will often see people still participating in (secularised versions of) the culture (e.g. western Atheists still celebrating things like Easter and Christmas), or look at people who have moved but still practice cultural elements from where they came from.

[@Ninja9JKD]

Another answer: Palestinian

[@adamgrant6936]

You didn't watch it didn't you

[@eduardtarniceriu102]

Population of GAZA has grown by almost a million in the last 16 years . That's a very strange type of genocide where the population actually increases The genocide is non existent

[@vondas1480]

Another answer: alderaan

[@farahshah3072]

@@eduardtarniceriu102 The reason why the population of Gaza has increased is because of the displacement of Palestinians across occupied territory as Israel's border gets larger. Not becauseof birthrate, it would be impossible for a population to increase that much over the course of 16 years just through people having children

[@roeydah]

@@farahshah3072 The population of arabs in israel pre 48' was 850K. nowadays- 7M. Your numbers just don't add up.

[@Arnoldismouldy]

free palestine!!! Thanks for this

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Thanks for watching!