garbagebagel

*unless you also meant freedom of expression or freedom of bodily autonomy

It looks like those lungs they put on cigarette packs

The cover up is gonna be a pair of titties lol

That was an example, but it doesn't necessarily need to be taking the children away. "Re-education" with the intent to remove someone's ethnical/cultural background is cultural genocide. The idea of "kill the Indian and save the man", in this case would be like "kill the Uighur and save the person". But I don't know enough about the specifics in China and I'm not arguing that what they're doing is specifically cultural genocide, I'm just saying that cultural genocide is real and does occur.

And I very strongly disagree that the civil war was cultural genocide. Just because the majority of the people who were on the losing side were white doesn't mean they were targeted indiscriminately JUST for being white (that's the key difference here). They were not targeted because of the way they looked or the language they spoke or where they were born. Racism and oppression are not cultural or human rights.

Equating white American culture to the racism that specifically Confederate and Neo-N*zis were and continue to advocate for is very much "I'm German so the swastika is my heritage" vibes.

Yeah but cultural genocide (ethnocide) doesn't refer to just kill off parts of a culture. It's a systemic approach, usually backed by law, to destroy the entire ethnicity and cultural norms.

Take for example what the Canadian government calls the cultural genocide of indigenous people in Canada. Their intention was not to kill the parts of indigenous culture that they didn't like, but it was forced assimilation through legal action and through removing children from their culture. It was remove/ban/destroy all indigenous culture - very "kill the Indian and save the man". That is cultural genocide.

In your example, the "destruction" of racism in American culture was not led by a government and not led against any ethnic group directly. Nobody was taking Confederate kids away from their family to teach them the "right" way.

Yes cultures change and adapt, but ethnocide is the very intentional move to do everything possible to destroy that culture. Will it adapt? Sure, yes, indigenous cultures have been extremely resilient and survived in Canada. but to say that it wasn't cultural genocide is to ignore the fact that children were literally ripped from their families in order to stop them from practicing their culture, or that cultural meetings and even just any type of meeting within their own groups was outlawed.

Indian children should be withdrawn as much as possible from the parental influence, and the only way to do that would be to put them in central training industrial schools where they will acquire the habits and modes of thought of white men.

That's a quote from our first prime minister. That is what I mean when I say cultural genocide.

Cultural genocide is intentional. And much of the time, as I mentioned before, it is a facet of violent genocide because it leads to deaths and multigenerational trauma. Even if the government wasn't going in and killing people en masse and intentionally - which is how genocide is technically defined - there's no way that this is not a type of genocide.

Thank you for the breakdown. I'm very genuinely curious about this cultural bed sharing thing but the only thing I'm finding is that it's common amongst family, not with guests. (I'm not questioning you, I'm just actually curious about this)

Another question - do you mean to say that you don't think cultural genocide is a thing (whether in this situation or not)? Cause it's definitely a facet of regular genocide, even genocide-lite.

That AI thing stole my job
Sincerely,
A pissed off ex-medical stenographer

I would never have sold your info :(

The Netherlands does have a slightly higher than average suicide rate. Maybe it is because they allow euthanasia, so it's just easier than other similar countries ... I don't know.

This is speculated in the wiki as well and honestly I'm conflicted on it too. If people are choosing it more when it's more readily available, does that necessarily reflect badly on the people providing it? or does it reflect worse on the societies where people are suffering so badly that they probably would choose suicide if it was easier?

In a kind of parallel way to abortion here, ban abortion and you get lower abortion rates but higher rates of poverty and lower education rates. Safe abortion options lead to higher abortion rates, but the quality of life is better for those that make the choice to do it safely.

Of course in this case it's a bit different because the quality of life in assisted death is no life, but is no life better than a fucking miserable one?

It's a lot to think about but, like others in this thread, i generally believe the majority of today's mental health problems (specifically depression, anxiety, and to some extent addiction) are systemic societal problems. I know others disagree and I'm not trying to be dismissive of people's very real mental health struggles, but I mean that they are caused systemically in the way lung cancer became more common because of cigarettes. Our environment affects us.

And honestly if they're looking for affordability, I have a $25 mi fit (or at least that's what it cost when I bought it 6 years ago) that has the same functionality. The app for it is shit, but it does the job.

Idk about that, dying sounds like a medical name.

But also, even hetero monogamous people can call the people they're dating partners.... I don't see her logic there.

I know they're essentially the same thing but when you say it that way I think of a hooded pullover, but hoodies are zippered for me.