Trump Won


Al-O-Meter

Member
gandalfe asked you to specifically identify the American groups, in a manner that comports with the usage of "genocide".
If you were to kill a third of all Americans it would be an American genocide even if it were Americans who were doing it just like the Cambodian genocide was a genocide even though Cambodians were doing it. Also like the Cambodian genocide, the American genocide Rubashov wants to see would likely sweep up a good number people belonging to religious groups and minorities along with everyone else Rubashov wants to see beat to death with baseball bats. Like the Cambodian genocide, it would be primarily political in nature although judging by Rubashov subsequent comments there may be some people who don small hats who find themselves on the wrong end of a baseball bat.
 


One Brow

Well-Known Member
If you were to kill a third of all Americans it would be an American genocide even if it were Americans who were doing it just like the Cambodian genocide was a genocide even though Cambodians were doing it.
As the times article clarifies, it's the included focus on the ethnic and religious minorities that makes it a genocide.

Also like the Cambodian genocide, the American genocide Rubashov wants to see would likely sweep up a good number people belonging to religious groups and minorities along with everyone else.
Which minorities would be targeted. Be specific.
 

Al-O-Meter

Member
As the times article clarifies, it's the included focus on the ethnic and religious minorities that makes it a genocide.
No. It is the large quantity of dead bodies that make it a genocide. Go back and read the definition provided by gandalfe. There is nothing it that requires the inclusion of minorities. Find a reputable source.


Which minorities would be targeted. Be specific.
All of them. The genocide Rubashov is pushing for is political in nature. The idea that minorities are a monolithic block are in rigid lockstep in political ideology is ridiculous. There is no reason to believe Rubashov’s hypothetical Stormtroopers wouldn’t round up Black conservatives, Hispanic conservatives, Asian conservatives, and every other type of conservative along with the ones of European ancestry. As for those controlling the banks and media, Rubashov doesn’t sound like he’d confine himself to only Holocausting the conservative ones.
 

One Brow

Well-Known Member
No. It is the large quantity of dead bodies that make it a genocide. Go back and read the definition provided by gandalfe. There is nothing it that requires the inclusion of minorities. Find a reputable source.
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

the murder of a whole group of people, especially a whole nation, race, or religious group:


All of them. The genocide Rubashov is pushing for is political in nature. The idea that minorities are a monolithic block are in rigid lockstep in political ideology is ridiculous.
The notion the "minority" only has certain directions of focus is also ridiculous.

There is no reason to believe Rubashov’s hypothetical Stormtroopers wouldn’t round up Black conservatives, Hispanic conservatives, Asian conservatives, and every other type of conservative along with the ones of European ancestry.
So, you are saying the minority he is targeting would be "conservatives", which isn't a genotype.
 

Gameface

IT'S TIME TO GET YOUR GAMEFACE ON!
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
‘Geno’ is one of the most common word roots and is frequently used in several words.
The word root ‘GENO’/ ‘GEN’ means race, kind, family or birth.

A common word based on this root is ‘Genocide’. The root ‘cide’ refers to ‘killing’,
Combining the roots ‘geno’ and ‘cide’, we arrived at the meaning of the word genocide:
Geno + cide = Killing of a race


Genocide = killing a geno
 

Gameface

IT'S TIME TO GET YOUR GAMEFACE ON!
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

the murder of a whole group of people, especially a whole nation, race, or religious group:



The notion the "minority" only has certain directions of focus is also ridiculous.


So, you are saying the minority he is targeting would be "conservatives", which isn't a genotype.
beat me to it
 

Al-O-Meter

Member
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Thank you for proving my point. Not a single one of your sources has the requirement of inclusion of minorities, however your top 2 sources both list "political" groups.

I'll give you another historical example that your line of thinking appears to be dismissing: The Genocide of Native Americans following the contact with Europeans in 1492. The Native Americans were the majority but their population decline was horrific. Academics very much count that as a genocide and the literature on it is deep. Do you dismiss that genocide because it doesn't meet your 'inclusion of minorities" genocide requirement?


So, you are saying the minority he is targeting would be "conservatives", which isn't a genotype.
Nope. I'm saying the requirement of there being a "minority" is something you made up and isn't mentioned in either gandalfe's original definition or in any of the subsequent definitions you've linked.

Rubashov was calling for a genocide that targeted a political group, which your sources confirm does indeed qualify as a genocide.
 
Last edited:

One Brow

Well-Known Member
Thank you for proving my point. Not a single one of your sources has the requirement of inclusion of minorities, however your top 2 sources both list "political" groups.
You're still going?

The question, after much distraction from you, was finally answered as "conservatives". Thanks.

I'll give you another historical example that your line of thinking appears to be dismissing: The Genocide of Native Americans following the contact with Europeans in 1492. The Native Americans were the majority but their population decline was horrific. Academics very much count that as a genocide and the literature on it is deep. Do you dismiss that genocide because it doesn't meet your 'inclusion of minorities" genocide requirement?
More distraction, and innumerate as well. There were about 55 million Native Americans around 1500 vs. over 60 million Europeans.

Nope. I'm saying the requirement of there being a "minority" is something you made up and isn't mentioned in either gandalfe's original definition or in any of the subsequent definitions you've linked.
No, these are only required in practice, not by definition.

Rubashov was calling for a genocide that targeted a political group, which your sources confirm does indeed qualify as a genocide.
Thanks again for the word play.
 

Al-O-Meter

Member
More distraction, and innumerate as well. There were about 55 million Native Americans around 1500 vs. over 60 million Europeans.
There were not 60 million Europeans in the Americas in the 16th century. Pointing to aggregate populations elsewhere on the planet isn't how minority status works. You wouldn't say people of European ancestry are the minority in America today because both people of African ancestry and Asian ancestry outnumber them globally.

Thanks again for the word play.
It is a weird argument. The definition over what is and is not a genocide is widely debated. If you pull up the wikipedia page on 'list of genocides by death toll' there is a banner across the top warning of their being no universally agreed upon definition. The events on that list have varied greatly over time. For example, Stalin's Great Purge with over a million dead is not listed even though it included ethnic cleansing. It isn't on the list because of...reasons.

When Rubashov called for millions of Americans to meet violent ends because half his family died in WWII and it was somehow these American's fault, it was out of left field to get a defense that it really wan't a genocide he was calling for. I get saying he was hyperbolic or joking. I don't see it myself but I don't know the guy. If someone wants to say that is just how he is then I'll admit they may know better than I do. I wouldn't necessarily want that person anywhere near my family but this is the internet and people say crazy stuff here.

I certainly don't take anything personally, but to get a "that's not really a genocide because not enough right wingers will be killed" was kind of a 'wait?! wut?'. I know that wasn't your argument but gandalfe was arguing that genocide needed extermination and apparently he thought right wingers are kinda sneaky and some would probably not be baseball-batted to death.

I read gandalfe's 'they won't be exterminated' response and muttered to myself "this basketball fan forum is @#$%ing looney toons". I'm very easy going and even calls for genocide are water off the ducks back, but I can't say gandalfe's response was expected and he has good taste in music so it's all good.
 

Hax0rs

Well-Known Member
As the times article clarifies, it's the included focus on the ethnic and religious minorities that makes it a genocide.
Which minorities would be targeted. Be specific.
You're an idiot.

A White race hating idiot.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
Rubashov's equation for American patriots=Hitler Nazi's is beyond any defense. But it is in the book of daily talking points for that day. When Harris and Biden omitted honoring D-Day casualties, and several media comments went out about how today's Antifa = Allied forces fighting Hitler, you know there's an agenda at work.

People don't say such stupid stuff generally. It takes a political hack with an agenda to make up that kind of crap. Then you can figure out who's who by who re-posts it.

The French Jacobins were not American Patriots, either. Just sayin'

Antifa and the BLM scheme are political agenda tools of some totally fascist political hacks with too much money for their own good. I Think the CCP also kicks in some bucks.

There are serious, important parallels to Xi and Hitler.

When American cartelists were harassed by Congress' market regulation, in the form of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, they invested abroad in Germany, Italy, and Japan. American investment built the Axis in the 1930s. American investment has been important to China in the past 40 years. With this kind of cartel economy, and the political influence it breeds, governments are strengthened and peoples' rights are decimated. Ordinary people are cut out of the loop.

Hitler went rogue and proved a bad investment and a threat even to his one-time investors. Xi looks more and more like he's about to go rogue as well. Xi is already implementing some large-scale human rights violations. I don't think the UN is about to take him on for that. We should. Biden won't.

Saying stuff like this is dangerous. Some people might get "disappeared". But we have to take up this fight.
 

One Brow

Well-Known Member
There were not 60 million Europeans in the Americas in the 16th century.
Nor were all the Native Americans being killed off or pushed off in the 16th century. It happened locally, over time, in areas where the Europeans outnumbered the Native Americans. We don't normally consider genocides to be centuries-long campaigns, but the actual usage of words doesn't seem to matter much to you, so you do you.

Pointing to aggregate populations elsewhere on the planet isn't how minority status works.
That's why your point was so innumerate.

Counting heads is also not how minority *status* works. Numerical majorities are often considered minorities because of oppression, difference in economic power, etc.

You wouldn't say people of European ancestry are the minority in America today because both people of African ancestry and Asian ancestry outnumber them globally.
I also would not say there was a genocide in the US today.

You're engaging in pointless digressions about an already-answered question. Why is that?

It is a weird argument. The definition over what is and is not a genocide is widely debated. If you pull up the wikipedia page on 'list of genocides by death toll' there is a banner across the top warning of their being no universally agreed upon definition. The events on that list have varied greatly over time. For example, Stalin's Great Purge with over a million dead is not listed even though it included ethnic cleansing. It isn't on the list because of...reasons.
Because the part of it that was ethnic cleansing (Polish Operation of the NKVD) is actually listed on the table as its own entry?

So, to you, what's a historical example of a large-scale killing that was not a genocide (just for fun)? One that had no political motivations at all, since you seem to feel that any political motivation means it is genocide.

I certainly don't take anything personally, but to get a "that's not really a genocide because not enough right wingers will be killed" was kind of a 'wait?! wut?'.

Looking back at pages 1 and 2, the only person looking at the numbers involved was you. Did I miss something?
I read gandalfe's 'they won't be exterminated' response and muttered to myself "this basketball fan forum is @#$%ing looney toons". I'm very easy going and even calls for genocide are water off the ducks back, but I can't say gandalfe's response was expected and he has good taste in music so it's all good.
We definitely can be a little crazy here.
 

Top