Is genocide okay, as long as you are polite about it?

[westwall]

I'd like to have an intelligent, flame-free, discussion over which is worse between the following two paradigms:

1) someone using profanity

2) someone being polite about supporting policies, that have
killed millions of innocent people, who have committed no crimes​

A brief background on this subject:

Many people from time to time, object to my use of profanity, which BTW, is just how I talk and is mostly used to show emphasis, nothing more. I am fine with people who don't care for that kind of language. That's their call, not mine.

However, I do take exception to some people taking issue with my use of profanity, who in post after post, thread after thread, year after year, defend the policies and actions of governments, that have killed millions of innocent men, women and children.

3 examples:

1. Nazi Germany and the Holocaust
2. US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq
3. Israeli aggression and the occupied territories

Those are 3 extreme cases of genocide.

Some people, either support example #1 (as in the skinheads, KKK and Aryan Brotherhood), or support examples #2 or #3. In the case of the Israeli right, they support example #3. The American right, supports both #2 and #3. I have never supported any of them. I have consistently condemned all 3.

But I'm the bad guy, because I use profanity?

There seems to be a certain disconnect from reality (or humanity) with this paradox.

And that leads me to ponder...

..."Is genocide okay, as long as you're polite about it?"

Let me break down #1 for you and everyone.

Tell me who decided certain words were not ok to say when other words that have the same meaning are ok to say. Who selected the words we are not supposed to use in our culture? Tell me who stated not to say a specific curse word and perhaps I won't say it. Until then, poop and shit mean the same thing and shouldn't be categorized differently.

I'm guessing a power hungry control freak came in somewhere along the way and decided to challenge the people on terms. "You can't say XXXX, but you can say poop" ETC

All words can have a dark side over time and some try to make new words for them. I say embrace the word and what it is instead of running from it's dark side.

I took a XXXX today.

Or maybe someone can show in the bible where it says we can't say specific words.

This... "I took a XXXX today" is contributing?

 

[emilynghiem]

A. Don't forget the genocide of Hawaiian natives. We still take this for granted today, that the reason Hawaii is not an independent Kingdom as before, was that a minority faction of occupants took over by military force until the ruler abdicated with a declaration this was not by consent but by fear of greater violence and sacrifice to prevent more bloodshed.

On a similar note, is slavery okay as long as it is in China, India or Mexico?
So it is okay to buy products that "indirectly" depend on slave labor "in other countries"?
As long as it is not slavery on American soil by citizens or residents within our borders?

B. To answer either question, it is like asking what is the difference between forgiving something that is wrong, and enabling it and allowing it to continue.

Just because we forgive wrongs does not mean we overlook them and justify them in any way.
For example, look at Hawaii: forgiving the genocide does not justify it as right, and in fact,
the US passed a resolution acknowledging the unlawful actions and issuing an apology to Hawaiian natives and descendants. And in the case of children born of rape,
just because we accept a child as a gift of God who was conceived from rape, does not mean we justify or diminish the rape that brought a child into the world who is loved and has good purpose.


You bring up issues on why do we forgive some things (like the genocide to take over Hawaii) but not others; and how can we do both things -- both FORGIVE the wrongs so we can pursue discussion or corrections CIVILLY without divisive blame and discord that doesn't help, AND still hold wrongdoers accountable.

How can we have both civilized relations AND accountability.
Can't we forgive wrongs and still seek justice, corrections and restitution?
Can't we hold people responsible for correcting wrongs WITHOUT being hateful
and unforgiving?

I think those are the real issues you bring up. And it applies generally to global slavery going on today, not just genocide by war in specific cases and countries.

I'd like to have an intelligent, flame-free, discussion over which is worse between the following two paradigms:

1) someone using profanity

2) someone being polite about supporting policies, that have
killed millions of innocent people, who have committed no crimes​

A brief background on this subject:

Many people from time to time, object to my use of profanity, which BTW, is just how I talk and is mostly used to show emphasis, nothing more. I am fine with people who don't care for that kind of language. That's their call, not mine.

However, I do take exception to some people taking issue with my use of profanity, who in post after post, thread after thread, year after year, defend the policies and actions of governments, that have killed millions of innocent men, women and children.

3 examples:

1. Nazi Germany and the Holocaust
2. US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq
3. Israeli aggression and the occupied territories

Those are 3 extreme cases of genocide.

Some people, either support example #1 (as in the skinheads, KKK and Aryan Brotherhood), or support examples #2 or #3. In the case of the Israeli right, they support example #3. The American right, supports both #2 and #3. I have never supported any of them. I have consistently condemned all 3.

But I'm the bad guy, because I use profanity?

There seems to be a certain disconnect from reality (or humanity) with this paradox.

And that leads me to ponder...

..."Is genocide okay, as long as you're polite about it?"

 

[MHunterB]

Ok, you made a specific claim that Israel has killed millions, back it up.

Although that is not the topic of the thread, you asked a question and I feel obligated to answer.

2 million dead since 1936, 0.1 million from violence, 1,9 million from war-, expulsion- and occupation-derived deprivation;

That is hardly an 'objective' site: it appears to be heavily politically-oriented, and indeed appears to be aimed *against* a specific - and I believe British - politician. It reads more like a smear campaign than any known for of actual journalism.

Any time a purported source of factual information includes such highly emotional phrases as 'all decent human beings must be against this' - or whatever smack talk was actually used - the content is virtually guaranteed to NOT be a 'report', but at best an 'op/ed' - and is most likely to be an 'ad' for a specific position.