When genocide and no genocide are both too extreme, maybe a little genocide? Or a genocide far away? Or maybe killing a group that doesn’t qualify the definition of genocide?
The number of people is irrelevant, it’s because being rich isn’t a protected class.
To use another example, it used to be legal way back when to sell cocaine and put it in soft drinks. “Cocaine sellers” were a group of people, but not a protected one. Criminalizing that group of people and explicitly trying to make that group not exist anymore isn’t a genocide, because “cocaine sellers” can’t reasonably be considered a protected class.
Likewise, Antebellum culture in the southern US was heavily influenced by slavery, and slaveowners were eliminated as a group of people, but that’s not genocide, because slaveowners are not a protected class.
In a strict reading, killing LGBTQ wouldn’t be genocide because they aren’t all related. On the other hand, they do form a (sub) culture. You can argue both ways but they technically don’t tick all the boxes. So it’s as bad but not jurisprudentially genocide so maybe a compromise we can convince our centrist friend of?
When genocide and no genocide are both too extreme, maybe a little genocide? Or a genocide far away? Or maybe killing a group that doesn’t qualify the definition of genocide?
yeah let’s kill a group of people that is not a group of people
Killing the rich wouldn’t be genocide.
But it would be pretty based.
that’s only because they aren’t a sufficiently large enough group of people
The number of people is irrelevant, it’s because being rich isn’t a protected class.
To use another example, it used to be legal way back when to sell cocaine and put it in soft drinks. “Cocaine sellers” were a group of people, but not a protected one. Criminalizing that group of people and explicitly trying to make that group not exist anymore isn’t a genocide, because “cocaine sellers” can’t reasonably be considered a protected class.
Likewise, Antebellum culture in the southern US was heavily influenced by slavery, and slaveowners were eliminated as a group of people, but that’s not genocide, because slaveowners are not a protected class.
Just kill 50% at random. Perfectly balanced
I understood that reference.
Which niche, obscure, underappreciated work of art is that comment referring to?
Half Baked
Well you see that’s why the case must be made they are slightly less human.
Just shoot madly into a crowd with a low rate of fire. Totally ethical since it’s absolutely random.
congrats you have invented terrorism
In a strict reading, killing LGBTQ wouldn’t be genocide because they aren’t all related. On the other hand, they do form a (sub) culture. You can argue both ways but they technically don’t tick all the boxes. So it’s as bad but not jurisprudentially genocide so maybe a compromise we can convince our centrist friend of?
it depends how pedantic you are about the exact definition but I think (or hope) most people agree that would be genocide
It’s contrieved. Genocide is about ending procreation. Is somebody LGBTQ when they procreate?
Lmafo queer people procreate all the time. Are you being serious right now?
no