Genocide is a protected term. Only crimes against humanity in the Genoc region of Poland can be called that.
Had me in the first half
Otherwise it’s just sparkling mass murder
- Hexbear, probably
DB0 seems like a cool instance, but the tankie roach adjacency is a massive red flag.
Indeed. All I wanna do is maths!
That and being explicitly pro-ai
I mean this is the reason they give when removing comments
Well, that is a shitty comment.
Awhile back I reposted an anti-soviet meme to like 7 Tankie comms and also Flippanarchy on DB0.
Can you guess which one got the most hate and a ban?
IDK if the entirety of DB0 is just a Tankie charade but I do know if it were then it wouldn’t operate any differently than it does currently.
They’ve gotten very strange in the past year or so. I’ve seen multiple dbzer0 users, including two admins, do complete 180s on tankie bullshit, and it’s rather bizarre.
My best guess is that tankies offer them a sense of community, which is how many terminally online folk get drawn into it. People who have a deep desire for community will overlook moral issues if invited to be a part of that community, and even adopt, consciously or unconsciously, those positions in order to better ‘fit in’ with the community.
In a time when the real world is more recognizably hostile than ever, or at least for as long as most of us here have been alive (insofar as we are both aware of it and noting that it is backsliding rather than improving), online communities probably seem quite tempting to hew closer to.
I think it’s your usual anarchist thinking they’re stronger together with a tankie, little do they know that the tankies will eat them every single time
I doubt practical considerations have anything to do with it.
idk, the historical analogies here seem like a trend line trying to form, there’s gotta be some kind of sourcing to it.
Tankies say nice words to anarchists when out of power
Naive anarchists fall for it, while wise anarchists do not [WE ARE HERE]
Just enough naive anarchists are peeled off from opposition to tankies that anarchist forces under the smart guys, gals, and enby pals, are overwhelmed by the tankies when push comes to shove
Tankies collapse to liberals peddling “The state, but slightly less atrocious”
Anarchists begin searching for allies under a liberal regime which despises them, but is non-totalitarian enough that meaningful organizing is possible
Tankies say nice words to anarchists when out of power…
Sorry I’ve got my airpods in, did they say something?
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
db0 also discourages voting in elections because “its a waste of time” lolol
Yea how is your anarchist community gonna decide things? Ask the community for agrees and disagrees with a proposal? Congrats, you just reinvented voting!
It’s funny how every anarchist community ends up becoming liberal, democratic and western
I’m by no means an anarchist expert, but from my experience. Its downfall is that it can’t scale, it will either implode or basically change into something else like you said.
Removed by mod
“China is being shitty and authoritarian towards the Uyghurs, but it’s nothing like the genocide Israel is waging”, saying that Chinese influence in Myanmar is a more serious violation by the PRC than the Uyghur genocide is, and leveling a judgement of “PTB” - “Power Tripping Bastard” - towards the moderator of this comm for banning someone who was literally denying the Uyghur genocide.
Combined, that’s pretty distinctly defending Uyghur genocide denial, and I would say right up on the border of denying Uyghur genocide themselves.
If I said, “Israel is being shitty and authoritarian towards the Palestinians, but it’s nothing like the genocide the Nazis waged”, would you regard that as:
A. Borderline genocide denial of the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people by reducing the ongoing genocide to something that is simply ‘shitty and authoritarian’ while noting that ‘real’ genocide is more than that
OR
B. Just making casual comparisons
The beauty of the fediverse is that if you don’t like the actions of one instance’s admin team you can simply move to another and create your own versions of communities they host, with blackjack and hookers.
So piefed
Removed by mod
I think it’s C: a bad faith comparison.
Whether something is genocide should be based on its own merits (are people being killed en masse because of their religion/race/etc?), not how much it resembles another genocide.
Here’s a good definition:
The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group.
If that describes what’s happening, then it’s a genocide. If it’s really close, it’s probably genocide. What’s going on with the Uyghurs is pretty close, and given we don’t have transparency, we must assume it’s a genocide. Likewise with Palestinians.
It’s not complicated, just look at the definition and see how much lines up.
Removed by mod
That is literally defending one genocide.
As a note: I’ve been vocal about not supporting any sorts of violence
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
It’s not the worst genocide bro. Just a little genocide bro.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
“China is being shitty and authoritarian towards the Uyghurs, but it’s nothing like the genocide Israel is waging”, saying that Chinese influence in Myanmar is a more serious violation by the PRC than the Uyghur genocide is, and leveling a judgement of “PTB” - “Power Tripping Bastard” - towards the moderator of this comm for banning someone who was literally denying the Uyghur genocide.
Combined, that’s pretty distinctly defending Uyghur genocide denial, and I would say right up on the border of denying Uyghur genocide themselves.
If I said, “Israel is being shitty and authoritarian towards the Palestinians, but it’s nothing like the genocide the Nazis waged”, would you regard that as:
A. Borderline genocide denial of the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people by reducing the ongoing genocide to something that is simply ‘shitty and authoritarian’ while noting that ‘real’ genocide is more than that
OR
B. Just making casual comparisons
Mass forced sterlization of Uighur women by the CCP is not a big deal?
No, I get their point that just because you’re comparing two genocides doesn’t make either of them “not a big deal”.
Although, imho, comparing genocides does seem like a kinda shitty thing to do for the same reason you don’t respond to “I’ve had a traumatic and exhausting day” with “Oh yeah? Well my day was WAY worse!”.
1 million deaths is child’s play compared to the black plague, WWI and WWII
It must be ok to kill 1 million people then
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Pug has been relentlessly defending the Democrats and relativising their unwavering support of Israel and its Genocide with the whole Trump is worst “hence” those who didn’t vote for the Democrats and their version of Genocide support de facto voted for Trump and his “worse” version of Genocide and “hence” are responsible for what’s happenning in Gaza.
They are an extremelly tribalist US Democrat Party member/supporter totally disconnected from objective reality and logic when it comes to anything related to that party, what its leaders say and the policy of the US under that party.
If due to being an extreme tribalist US Democrat Party member one absolutelly believes with zero skepticism in anything coming from their tribe’s “chiefs” be it directly or written in the News Media associated with that party (such as the NY Times) is “God’s honest truth” with no taint of Propaganda, given those leaders’ posture relative to China (whom they see as an adversary) and Israel (whom they unwaveringly support) its is absolutelly logical that one who believes their words are perfectly and indisputably true would believe pretty the worst possible things about China and the best possible things about Israel they read in US Media as “perfectly and undisputable true” which because of the very high level of Propaganda in the US means they would likely believe quite distorted takes on both nations.
The slant and the quality of propaganda coming from the US Democrat Party and its Media both against China and in favour of Israel is such that it makes sense that anybody who does not at all question the truthfullness of it would genuinelly believe that the Uyghur Genocide is actually worse than the Gaza Genocide given that they’ve been fed a steady diet of a subtlety-free slant on Israel as being good people who are the victims of terrorists and China being horrible authoritarian mosters and their perception of reality has thus been profoundly pulled away from objective reality on both sides to the point of them actually crossing.
Naturally, for such a person anybody who does not accept such information on China and Israel as absolutelly and indisputably true with no propaganda taint whatsoever, must be under the influence of some foreign dictatorship’s propaganda (the idea that such people might just be highly skeptical of US press and politicians doesn’t even “compute” in the mind of the extreme tribalist), and since nowadays it’s a far too obvious mark of being a mindless US tribalist muppet to call those people “Commies”, our Pug calls them “Tankies” instead since at the moment that’s the more socially acceptable version of that older insult.
Lord.
I like how they are gate keeping the term tankie
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Wherein the Uyghur genocide is called an ‘Atlanticist psyop’ and the Holodomor is denied?
Removed by mod
I don’t agree with their assessments, but I also don’t agree with either of y’all’s name calling and disrespect.
Sorry for committing the horrible crime of ‘disrespect’ towards genocide denial??
It serves none of us well, and distracts us from our true enemies: the ruling class.
… like the ruling class genociding the Uyghurs at this point in time?
In this case, I’ve decided to stay where I am, as essentially nothing has changed on my front.
That’s up to you, man.
Unruffled is the biggest reason I decided to block their instance. When I brought some issues up with db0 (the other admin) about it, he just ignored it and played dumb. One admin is actively a troll and the other, at best, doesn’t know how to handle their shit.
“Okay but this other thing is worse,” say people who firmly rejected moral relativism during the election.
Removed by mod
I’m genuinely not too educated on the Uighur situation but my vague sense is that it’s more cultural erasure, imperialism, and mass imprisonment than genocide but maybe I don’t know all the details. Have there been a lot of deaths over there?
These issues are always tough because it’s very obvious both that crimes against humanity are occurring but also that western powers are using them as propaganda to dehumanize the Chinese. I feel the same sense of discomfort when people exaggerate or hyperfocus on atrocities committed by Hamas. Even if it’s all true, the goal and context of this rhetoric is disturbing.
Genocide can take many forms. It doesn’t need to be instant death.
Local example, but here in Australia, the government thought to ‘breed’ the Aboriginal out
Very atrocious, and it has similarities to what China does with its imperialism towards other ethnic groups in Asia
Removed by mod
I’m genuinely not too educated on the Uighur situation but my vague sense is that it’s more cultural erasure, imperialism, and mass imprisonment than genocide but maybe I don’t know all the details.
And forced sterilization, and starvation, and ‘disappearing’ prisoners, and systemic violence in concentration camps…
So, you know, pretty similar to everything Israel was doing before October 7th, which was also quite fucking distinctly a genocide.
These issues are always tough because it’s very obvious both that crimes against humanity are occurring but also that western powers are using them as propaganda to dehumanize the Chinese. I feel the same sense of discomfort when people exaggerate or hyperfocus on atrocities committed by Hamas. Even if it’s all true, the goal and context of this rhetoric is disturbing.
… but the goal and context of the rhetoric of downplaying Uyghur genocide isn’t disturbing?
In the west I would have to say so. If we were in China or somewhere more aligned with them then things would be different.
Personally I don’t feel that pre-Oct 7th Palestine met the definition of a genocide either but I’ve had to accept that people want to throw this term around lightly for some reason these days.
It not being a genocide doesn’t make it in any way acceptable though, to be clear. These things are terrible but they could never bring about the destruction of an ethnically on their own.
In the west I would have to say so. If we were in China or somewhere more aligned with them then things would be different.
… I happen to think that genocide apologia is bad regardless of where it happens.
Radical, it would seem.
Personally I don’t feel that pre-Oct 7th Palestine met the definition of a genocide either but I’ve had to accept that people want to throw this term around lightly for some reason these days.
It’s not ‘lightly’. Actions taken with the intent to exterminate an ethnic group, in whole or in part, is literally the definition of genocide, or attempted genocide.
It not being a genocide doesn’t make it in any way acceptable though, to be clear. These things are terrible but they could never bring about the destruction of an ethnically on their own.
You think that the total suppression of Uyghur culture and the mass sterilization of Uyghur women, resulting in a drop of birth rates by a third combined with the rampant detainment of Uyghur people in concentration camps with high excess death rates compared to the general population couldn’t bring about the destruction of an ethnicity in a region?
Or, for the other side of the coin, the mass impoverishment of Palestinians with an eye towards creating abhorrent and high-mortality living standards in the occupied territories, combined with regular mass imprisonment of Palestinians and direct military action against Palestinian civilians and the openly expressed desire to annex and literally colonize Palestinian land with ethnically Jewish settlers, displacing and expelling the Palestinians of the region in the process, couldn’t bring about the destruction of the Palestinian ethnicity in Palestine?
Back in 20 fucking 14 I was watching Palestinian children get blown to pieces by Israeli artillery.
Shit’s fucked. Shit’s been a genocide for a long time. The Holocaust didn’t start with gas chambers. It escalated until gas chambers were where it ended.
Could those things lead to genocide? Yes, absolutely. But It depends completely on the scale of such activities. It’s not clear to me that this is the case here. The most recent census data shows Uighur population growth continues in China.
Now, as you correctly pointed out, genocide can also occur when a part of an ethnic group is being exterminated. Is there some definable part of the population that is being more severely affected, such that their extermination seems imminently possible? Is there some town or region where the violence, sterilization, etc. is much more severe? I have not heard such a claim but I’m open to it.
But my broader point is this: Is it genocide apologia to acknowledge the events that are happening, condemn them, but question whether they meet the definition? That seems like a stretch. This is a semantic discussion, not a moral one. But this question of what is or isn’t a genocide has become a litmus test for whether you belong to the good tribe or the bad one, so people react so emotionally that it’s hard to have this conversation. And, I think the looseness with which we use this word opens up its use in situations that it clearly shouldn’t be, like allegations of white or Christian genocide in the US.
Could those things lead to genocide? Yes, absolutely. But It depends completely on the scale of such activities.
Dropping birth rates by a third by forced sterilization is a pretty big fucking scale. What do you call it when policies are pursued to aggressively drop birth rates whilst simultanously spiking the death rate of a native ethnicity, whilst moving in settlers of a different ethnicity into the region and suppressing the native ethnicity’s culture?
It would be like arguing that there was no genocide of Native Americans in the USA because the Native American population grew over the course of the USA’s existence.
But my broader point is this: Is it genocide apologia to acknowledge the events that are happening, condemn them, but question whether they meet the definition? That seems like a stretch. This is a semantic discussion, not a moral one.
If someone denied the current stage of the genocide in Palestine, would you question whether that was genocide apologia? If they said, like some mealy-mouthed mainstream Dem, that what Israel was doing was bad but refused to append any label to the ongoing murder of Palestinian civilians (including the label of ‘murder’ or ‘civilian’), would you regard that as just a ‘semantic discussion’, and not a moral one?
What words we use matter. Words have power. Words have meaning.
But this question of what is or isn’t a genocide has become a litmus test for whether you belong to the good tribe or the bad one, so people react so emotionally that it’s hard to have this conversation.
The reason it’s become a ‘litmus test’ is because we generally agree in the modern day that genocide is bad. Thus, campists of either side must deny genocide when it’s ‘their side’, but can freely celebrate ‘bad camp’ performing genocide as proof of their badness.
It’s no different than accusations of authoritarianism. The issue is not that authoritarianism is more widely recognized; the issue is that authoritarianism continues to be denied when it is convenient for campists to do so.
The reason it’s become a ‘litmus test’ is because we generally agree in the modern day that genocide is bad.
No, the litmus test is whether you call something a genocide, even if it doesn’t meet the definition.
A proper argument:
- defines genocide
- shows evidence that an event matches the definition from 1
- shows evidence where it doesn’t match the definition from 1, with an explanation why it still meets the criteria
But instead, what we get is something that vaguely resembles genocide if taken out of context because normal people hate genocide and will likely not look too closely into the details if they don’t like the group that’s being accused.
For example, is the current focus on deportation from the US a genocide? Most reasonable people would say no, but if you dislike the US enough, you could be convinced that it is.
From what I’ve read of the Uyghur situation, it’s close enough, but perhaps “forced assimilation” or even “cultural genocide” is more appropriate. It’s difficult to know the full extent given how tightly the CCP controls information, so maybe it qualities for the UN definition of genocide.
But pretty much every discussion online gets shut down if someone fails the litmus test. I get that a lot of people aren’t arguing in good faith, but it’s important to remember that it goes both ways.
Sure, it’s a big scale in most contexts, but not in the way that I mean here. It’s not big enough to cause the extermination of the group in question. Which is what matters in terms of whether it is genocide. It is certainly ethnic cleansing, human rights violations, mass murder, concentration camps, I think all of these labels fit. But genocide is the most abhorrent crime imaginable and it requests a similarly extreme level of violence. If events continues to worsen in severity, then it could qualify in the future certainly. I’m not sure what that trend line looks like.
The atrocities done to the Native Americans constituted genocide because they were widely exterminated. Their populations increased mainly after the genocide, so I don’t see that example as too relevant.
Regarding Palestine, earlier in the conflict I think it was a bit more ambiguous but with the starvation campaign and the dwindling list of excuses to continue bombing, combined with open statements of genocidal intent by members of the ruling coalition, it’s hard to argue against at this point. Still, I think it being an active and ongoing event and the belligerent having an active propaganda campaign and blocking independent fact-finding on the ground, I would not condemn apologia as harshly as, say, the holocaust, where the facts have been well-understood for decades now.
If I felt they were deliberately using different words to obfuscate the severity of the situation then maybe, so I see your point. But I don’t think that applies here since the facts don’t match the definition. But no matter where we want to draw the line or define these concepts, there is always going to be a gray area, and there needs to be a level of discussion allowed around that. And I feel like this debate has become so toxic that this is no longer possible.
So, I would only use the term apologia when someone’s statements greatly and obviously diverge from the known facts. Certainly there are plenty of people who have engaged in such on this topic on .ml, but I don’t agree it’s fair to level this accusation at the users in question here.
Sure, it’s a big scale in most contexts, but not in the way that I mean here. It’s not big enough to cause the extermination of the group in question. Which is what matters in terms of whether it is genocide. It is certainly ethnic cleansing, human rights violations, mass murder, concentration camps, I think all of these labels fit
This is not a position that would be taken seriously by most scholars of genocide, including the man who coined the very term genocide, and would exclude the vast majority of genocides, including the Native American genocides, from the term. Ethnic cleansing itself is, by definition, genocide.
The atrocities done to the Native Americans constituted genocide because they were widely exterminated.
In the sense that you are using ‘exterminated’, no, they generally were not. Most Native polities were reduced by restriction of movement, impoverishment, and destruction of their way of life. All the massacres performed by white genocidaires in Native American history, horrific and repulsive as they are, are only a tiny percentage of the reduction and elimination of Native peoples in the vast majority of the USA.
This is a semantic discussion, not a moral one. But this question of what is or isn’t a genocide has become a litmus test for whether you belong to the good tribe or the bad one, so people react so emotionally that it’s hard to have this conversation. And, I think the looseness with which we use this word opens up its use in situations that it clearly shouldn’t be, like allegations of white or Christian genocide in the US.
The same is true for “fascism” just as it was for “communism” during the “red scare.”
We shouldn’t jump to extreme terminology to try to scare people into agreeing with us. Use accurate terminology and defend your points with facts, not emotional language.
Removed by mod
I love how YTB has banned me for no reason on that community
You’re instance banned from dbzero because of your anti asylum seeker rhetoric. The modlog is public my guy, you can see the reason.
I’m not even anti asylum seeker. And even then, it’s got nothing to do with YTB
good, db0 is a tankie bar
Removed by mod
Anarchism ≠ liberalism
I don’t think that was ever in dispute?
Removed by mod
no Db0 tankies
Removed by mod
@irelephant@lemmy.world
fuck off using your alt
That vote was a genuine mistake 💀, sorry.
we cool we cool
Removed by mod
