this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
678 points (95.9% liked)

World News

39365 readers
2161 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jaek 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's a bad comparison. The Wikipedia decision was made specifically because the experts -- i.e actual scholars of genocide and war crimes -- have a very widely held consensus that a genocide is occurring.

Do you disagree with the experts?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There is the UN with its ICJ. That's what pretty much the whole world agrees on.

They are the final deciders, but we can agree that it will take time for a decision.

What might be interesting, is what happens and how various people (including the scholars or you) react, if the ICJ decided differently. But that's just speculation at this point.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Be careful with the words here. The ICJ is the final decider about one specific definition of genocide. However, there is nothing that says that is the sole valid definition of genocide. In fact:

According to Ernesto Verdeja, associate professor of political science and peace studies at the University of Notre Dame, there are three ways to conceptualise genocide other than the legal definition: in academic social science, in international politics and policy, and in colloquial public usage.

  • The academic social science approach does not require proof of intent,[11] and social scientists often define genocide more broadly.[12]
  • The international politics and policy definition centres around prevention policy and intervention and may actually mean "large-scale violence against civilians" when used by governments and international organisations.
  • Lastly, Verdeja says the way the general public colloquially uses "genocide" is usually "as a stand-in term for the greatest evils".[11] This is supported by political scientist Kurt Mundorff who highlights how to the general public genocide is "simply mass murder carried out on a grand scale".[13]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You are saying "Be careful with the words here" and that there a different definitions...

I am the one here who is careful with the G-word. Others just throw that word in (of course without mentioning which definition they refer to)...

Let's be honest: In the end, the legal definition (and therefore the legal decision) is the one that has actual consequences.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

The definition you insist on is not the only one with consequences. Arguably, in the Trump-Netanyahu era, the legal one might be the one with the least amount of consequences...

It also not the one used for the English Wikipedia. I told you to be careful with words because you were using the legal definition to argue against the scholarly one. Sticking to the legal definition doesn't make you careful per se. And I'm not sure I understand what "throwing around" is happening here. This is not the Lord's name to not be taken in vain.