• 6 Posts
  • 272 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle


  • Be careful with the words here. The ICJ is the final decider about one specific definition of genocide. However, there is nothing that says that is the sole valid definition of genocide. In fact:

    According to Ernesto Verdeja, associate professor of political science and peace studies at the University of Notre Dame, there are three ways to conceptualise genocide other than the legal definition: in academic social science, in international politics and policy, and in colloquial public usage.

    • The academic social science approach does not require proof of intent,[11] and social scientists often define genocide more broadly.[12]
    • The international politics and policy definition centres around prevention policy and intervention and may actually mean “large-scale violence against civilians” when used by governments and international organisations.
    • Lastly, Verdeja says the way the general public colloquially uses “genocide” is usually “as a stand-in term for the greatest evils”.[11] This is supported by political scientist Kurt Mundorff who highlights how to the general public genocide is “simply mass murder carried out on a grand scale”.[13]

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions







  • The German wikipedia can make its own editorial decisions. They also don’t have a Rohingya genocide article, only an article about the Rohingya genocide case at the ICJ. The English Wikipedia has two articles. It would seem the crux of the matter is that the Germans treat the word genocide as a purely legal term and therefore wait for the ICJ decision, whereas the English treat the word as a topic on which a scholarly academic consensus can be pronounced, in addition to the legal proceedings. One can argue back and forth about which approach has more or less merit, but they are both valid.

    Edit: grammar








  • Frankly, I think this is new territory. We have a new kind of phenomenon: stochastic terrorism, that has specifically as a vehicle the virality of social media. I don’t think old absolutes, like the American First Amendment, are useful, sort of like how your Second Amendment was written at a time of muskets, not assault weapons. Social media virality plus algorithms that prioritize engagement at all costs (including via rage) over accuracy are a new thing, causing a new problem. It’s right for courts, legal scholars, and lawmakers to be taking on this problem.

    Your concern over balancing the different social goods is of course legitimate and at the centre of this debate.





  • I don’t know what that means. European countries have multiple cultures in them.

    That said, your catchphrase is typically used to imply that Islam is incompatible with Europe. But there exist several countries in geographical Europe with Islam as an established religion. Greece has an official Muslim minority. Bosnia, Albania can be classified as plurality-muslim countries. European Turkey, west of the Bosphorus has more people than many European countries. And there are sizeable non-immigrant Muslim communities all over eastern and southeastern Europe. Islam has been part of the European story for a millennium. So I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. Islam is as European as apple pie is American.