The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Right?
Trump Won
- Thread starter babe
- Start date
gandalfe
Well-Known Member
What national or ethnic group would they be exterminating if they did?
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
What makes you think Rubashov was exaggerating? In his response, the only thing he said I got wrong was in labeling him an American. Then he went on about a group of people that controls the banks and the media who are secretly pulling our strings for their own profit to justify his original statement of wanting the people who were the focus of his ire to meet violent ends. That isn't a dog whistle. That is a regular referee whistle blown loud enough the whole arena can hear it.
Last edited:
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
The nation referenced in "genocide of fellow Americans" would be America, and genocide doesn't mean "extermination". The Rwandan Genocide was a genocide even though the Tutsi weren't exterminated.
gandalfe
Well-Known Member
Article II of the United Nations Genocide Convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such":
- Killing members of the group
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Having knowledge of the poster and his posting habits.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
That is correct. Genocide does not mean extermination. Killing ~100 million Americans would be an American genocide. It would be one of the largest genocides the planet had ever seen. Even the Cambodian Genocide carried out by the Cambodian Khmer Rouge only killed about a quarter of their nation's population.
I don't know what you mean by your "overwheming majority" or why that could possibly lend credence to your opinions of Trump.
Perhaps it is the people near or dear to you, maybe even a few 'roos. Perhaps it is the people you know who have stewed themselves in the same brew, politically speaking..
When you hear anyone asserting that Hitler was a conservative, or similar idealists who believe in absolute authoritarian governance, state propaganda drilled into the masses, and jackbooted thugs who will hang up dissenters by their heels in the public square, or in camps of any kind, you should know you are not discussing any kind of "conservative" in any nation in this world.
It takes that kind of a status quo before people can try to "conserve" that kind of a system.
Well, maybe Stalinst Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia, or Mao's China, or Venezuela or Cuba. Most people don't care to call them "right wing".
Pretty sure the French Revolution no damn starnard to judge politics by. So the Right-wing and Left-wing crap is *******, so far as I care.
Perhaps the American Revolution would be a more useful standard. Tories and Colonists. The Tories liked the old system, and were the "conservatives' in that time and place. The Revolution in America was about people having their rights. The excesses of over-Lordy British merchants and governors were a direct assault on human rights generally. British citizens..... the colonists..... were denied their rights as British subjects under the Magna Carta.
In the simplest terms, Trump is no Hitler, no tyrant, no Statist, and the leader of no revolt. He organized no mobs, paid no political agitators, and imo quite chumpishly tried to be nice to his opponents. Some Americans like him because he listens to their notions about better government, and he is not Hillary, Obama, or Pelosi, or Mumbles.
Conservatives in America want to keep the Bill of Rights, and other remnants of Magna Carta human rights alive. We just have an overblown Establishment Class including a lot of bureaucrats who want to "Fundamentally Transform" America into a socialst sort of hellhole.
No thanks.
We can still wipe our own butts.
But there's a whole bunch of big bucks behind the movement to transform America into a globalists'wet dream that should be correctly seen much like Hitler's mix of authoritarianism, statism, socialism, and fascism, with all the horrors of degrading human rights that the mission requires.
If you were a sincere commie you'd vote out the Burgeoise Clintons, Obamas, Bushes, and Bidens.
Actually, I think no one important still believes in Marx. It's just a tool kit for working the crowd.
Pretty much a false political and economic ideal of no jpractical beneficence.
Last edited:
I'd have to agree with Fish that this was more of an expression that a real proposal to eliminate a segment of humans, however mistaken they may be.
"Rube" is an outback sort of good ol' boy like Fish.
Pretty sure if you got your nose out of the newspapers, you face out of the TV, and looked around at a few real people, you'd realize this rhetoric has no weight. Nobody significant is trying to "Overthrow the Constitution" except the people who are down with fundamentally transforming America. Look for Obama and his sort if that's your concern. Obama professes Marxist beliefs, as does Hillary, and many in the Democratic Party today, but we can argue wheter they are sincere or just using the tools of the trade. Marxism is a sort of systematic method, if you care to work actively in politics. It is a dishonest and dishonorable trade.
American ideals require more public informed involvement, and more political tolerance.
Trump was a bit overboard with executive orders but it was his only tools, and he did less of that than either Obama or Biden. In many instances, he restrained bureaucrats from exercising more unconstitutional power. Pretty sure he saw himself as a real "American" working to make America better for its people.
Before you start talking about the Constitution, teach,, you should read it and try to separate yourself from whatever political bias you love.
Frankly, I don't know how self-professed activists can fall in with the likes of a Sir Kicky and then claim they are the defenders of the Constitution.
But that's what Rubashov is talking about too. Civil discourse, based on some facts and valid logic, trying to make the world a better place.......
A basic summary of the Constitution, in one sentence, is the design to limit government abuse of human beings.
Trump shook up an Establishment that had become intolerably abusive. That's the reason he got the votes he did, despite every effort to shut him down.
Biden's time in office is stoking the public outrage. Even if the media won't print the news. But it's not a "Revolution", it is people in large numbers no longer believing all the lies.
I don't think Trump can get elected again, though. It's just time for more diverse sorts of people working to end the abuses.
Last edited:
By connotation, genocide refers to acting against a group you are not a part of . gandalfe's question highlighted that this would be Americans killing Americans, hence not a genocide of Americans.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
That is not correct. Both examples I cited were in-nation genocides. The Rwandan Genocide was carried out by Rwandans against Rwandans. The Cambodian Genocide was carried out by Cambodians, and is doubly applicable because it was carried by by Cambodians against other Cambodians over a difference in politics.
By Hutus (non-Tutsi) against Tutsi, and by mainstream Cambodians, in part, against minority Cambodians. In both cases, by out-groups against in-groups.
Cambodian genocide - Wikipedia
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
There would also be out-groups and in-groups in Rubashov's wished for American genocide but much like the Cambodian genocide, both the out-groups and in-groups would be contained within a single nation.By Hutus (non-Tutsi) against Tutsi, and by mainstream Cambodians, in part, against minority Cambodians. In both cases, by out-groups against in-groups.
Cambodian genocide - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
With the Cambodian genocide, there may have been minorities caught up in the dead but Cambodia was a very homogeneous country. You don't wipe out a quarter of the population without killing mostly ethnic Cambodians. In the wikipedia article you linked, start at the section labeled "Process". The thing that landed you in the Killing Fields were so-called "political crimes". The Cambodian Communists weren't big on diversity of opinion. Either you saw things politically the way the Khmer Rouge approved of or some crimes-against-humanity investigation team would later find your remains in a dirt pit.
Reports available at that time did not attempt to convolute the facts seen on the ground.
we know some ethnic groups resisted the communist government with some fairly distinct trend. We know the communists for whatever reason did the killing. It was not violence based on ethnicity but on opinion.
On his third drink or not, Rube was frustrated with difference of opinion. We do all tend to consider others who don't have the same views, particularly important views, as ignoramuses.
I am probably one of the more irritating opinionators around here. It probably triggered some old sores.
I've seen some redneck folks get hot under the collar for almost every imaginable "cause". I think I'll try to get back into the basketball threads for a bit.
I went to college, worked for years in the university culture, listening to NPR like it was General Conference. I can hardly explain how it felt to just get away from all that.
A couple of very wealthy dudes from the "outback" came to my daughters' graduation party, and got to discussing desalination. I'm not a great salesman, and they couldn't see the gold in the water, and I've got nothing to show for the concept. While they were discussing how ineffective they were as carpenters and could not longer stand to do home repairs because they were making so much money, I said I had a shortcut. I could get all the same psychological lift out of just daydreaming stuff. Who needs to earn money.
I think they called me a narcissist, but they didn't see how useless bragging was, either. Either or both of them could have dropped a million in venture capital to get me going on something that has a prospect of returning 1000%. But for these guys, I have to get things directly visible. Tangible.
OK, so I have stuff to do.
gandalfe asked you to specifically identify the American groups, in a manner that comports with the usage of "genocide".
I read that part as well. Humans are reasonably complicated, and there is no contradiction between a largely-politically-motivated killing spree being interwoven with one also focused on specific minority groups.
Al-O-Meter
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. 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.
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.
Al-O-Meter
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.
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.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
www.dictionary.com
Definition of GENOCIDE
the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com
genocide
1. the crime of intentionally destroying part or all of a national, ethnic…
dictionary.cambridge.org
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.