Thank you. This is all that needs to be said on this subject.
The word genocide does not mean "a lot of red flags and generally terrible things", nor was it made to describe that.
>Don't respond to something like this with a flippant statement about clutching your pearls.
Don't clutch pearls then.
As long as you keep abusing the word "genocide" to apply it to the plight of white people in South Africa, you'll get the response you think is flippant, and I consider to be insufficiently stern given the harm and disrespect of such usage.
Saying this as a Jew whose family members were killed by the Nazis during WW2, by the way.
They were KIA as soldiers, so I'm hesitant to label them as victims of genocide, even though they were certainly the target of it — out of respect both to them, and those who didn't get a chance to die fighting.
You don't get to call a demand for respect flippant.
> Thank you. This is all that needs to be said on this subject.
No? There are tons of completely insane things happening in SA, and much that needs to be said and done. If you're saying the minimum threshold for caring about what happens in other countries is actual genocide, then I disagree with you.
People have been incorrectly calling this a genocide for a long time, which is why the PDF from Genocide Watch dates back to 2015.
On the right you have people trying to make this even worse than it is, and on the left you have people trying to ignore it, or minimize it.
>There are tons of completely insane things happening in SA, and much that needs to be said and done. If you're saying the minimum threshold for caring about what happens in other countries is actual genocide, then I disagree with you.
I'm not saying that.
The subject at hand is whether there's a "white genocide" taking place, and that subject is summed up in a single word: no.
>People have been incorrectly calling this a genocide for a long time
Which is why it's important to not perputate this harmful falsehood any further.
>on the left you have people trying to ignore it, or minimize it.
By using the term genocide where it's not applicable, you're actively minimizing the actual genocides that have taken place (or are taking place) — and by extension, you're complicit in minimizing the very issue you're discussing.
See, we both agree that whatever is taking place in South Africa is not as bad as an actual genocide.
But by using the word "genocide" in conjunction with it, you're diluting the meaning of the word reserved for the absolute extreme — you're helping spread the notion that genocide doesn't have to be that bad; that "red flags and terrible things" fits under the something sort of kind of like genocide label.
What we have in the end is the parable of the boy who cried genocide [1].
The point of the parable isn't that there's no threat of a wolf attack, nor that is shouldn't be seriously considered.
Thank you. This is all that needs to be said on this subject.
The word genocide does not mean "a lot of red flags and generally terrible things", nor was it made to describe that.
>Don't respond to something like this with a flippant statement about clutching your pearls.
Don't clutch pearls then.
As long as you keep abusing the word "genocide" to apply it to the plight of white people in South Africa, you'll get the response you think is flippant, and I consider to be insufficiently stern given the harm and disrespect of such usage.
Saying this as a Jew whose family members were killed by the Nazis during WW2, by the way.
They were KIA as soldiers, so I'm hesitant to label them as victims of genocide, even though they were certainly the target of it — out of respect both to them, and those who didn't get a chance to die fighting.
You don't get to call a demand for respect flippant.