this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2022
17 points (90.5% liked)
World News
32088 readers
1236 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
When did this happen?
Latest version I know, 3rd of April, 2022
https://ria.ru/20220403/ukraina-1781469605.html
This does not support your position that they are "self certified genocidal" and "fascist. What you have linked to quite explicitly states "the people are good, the government is bad".
You are committing a form of soft holocaust denial when you misuse the term genocide to describe something that is objectively not a genocide. It's extremely offensive to actual victims of genocide and very damaging when we have to raise the issue of real genocides.
The holocaust has nothing to do with this. In fact, its kind of funny that you brijg it up, because the holocaust is treated as the worst genocide ever, when the vast majority of people killed by Nazi Germany were ethnic slavs and Russians.
Distorting the meaning of the term genocide is well recognised as soft holocaust denial and stating this just shows how little you have ever read about the topic of holocaust denial and the muddying of the meaning of the word genocide.
I dont care what you and your buddies have recognized, and the term "soft holocaust denial" is complete nonsense.
It's a real term whether you think it's nonsense or not
maybe on twitter...
Now I know you didn't even Google it because no. You're very wrong.
Searched it, and it looks like all usage of the term is from the Zionist lobby. Not surprising, because they use the holocaust as justification for occupation and genocide in Palestine.
They surely do abuse the term, but not always. Which don't change the fact that banalisation of genocide, not necessary only holocaust, is a form of genocide denial - genocide here, genocide there, genocide for everyone, one more, one less, real or aspulled in Langley...
This here is clear example as the one guy above posted the table and got immediately destroyed in next comment - Ukrainian atrocities against Donbas definitely have most of the marks of genocide, and Ukraine definitely is trying to spin tale of "russian genocide" on Ukrainians partially to hide the fact they were shelling civilians for 8 years.
Analogy between Israel and Palestine is coming to mind very quickly, but the roles aren't as libs imagine them to be. To get a full picture imagine a third country attacking Israel.
I think you need to learn where the origin of the word genocide comes from. The word was developed in direct response to the holocaust by Raphäel Lemkin in 1944. The word did not exist before then.
You can not disconnect the word genocide from its origin as a word that was specifically created to prevent people from being able to deny the holocaust, a huge amount of effort was put into making sure the holocaust would be extremely difficult to revise and/or forget by contorting it into something other than what it was.
When you misuse it, you are directly taking part in misusing an important word in describing and defending the holocaust, developed specifically for the purposes of preventing holocaust denial.
It is an action the helps holocaust deniers by changing the meaning of the word genocide. It is soft holocaust denial.
Most Jews in Polish territory back then were of Polish nationality.
Sue me.
I really don't think that's a constructive response to someone pointing out you're doing soft holocaust denial. It's pretty concerning behaviour actually. Weakening and misusing words like genocide and fascism actively helps fascists.
A long time ago, I stopped caring about shaming, ad hominem, accusations and downvoting. If one wishes to change my mind, one has two ways. Either be accepted as a trusted source of knowledge or insight, or threaten me with something real to force my behaviour (not necessarily my opinion). The choice is yours. :-)
This is a very liberal attitude. CNN is a "trusted source of knowledge or insight" to millions of people but should it be? Absolutely fucking not.
The merit of what is being said and the evidence presented stands on its own, regardless of the source it is coming from. You should just content on merit, not on institutions and positions with manufactured prestige.
This whole mindset is what leads people to blindly believing anything they see from xyz source even when those sources put out mountains and mountains of absolute bullshit all the time.
In this very thread you have lied more than once, linking to content from russian state media with the claim that it says something it does not. That is a fact and not at all "ad hominem". Debatebro rubbish also became cringe at least a decade ago.
<3
See this shit here is worse than the shit that the admins have been tone policing people for. This is just intentionally inflammatory, adds nothing, and is participation in completely bad faith. Jog on mate.
<3
Lib
<3
"If you want to change MY mind you gotta be an authority figure or threaten me!" — a free thinker
<3
This was Google translated, but I think it gets the same meaning:
If I am anticipating your line of thought correctly, this quote should clarify and disproves that this journalist wants to kill the Ukrainian population. That is a bald-faced lie. On top of that, this is an opinion piece in the news. State run or not, it is not an official position of the Russian government.
Neither are https://myrotvorets.center/ statements official position of the Ukrainian government.
So, either both or none...
I've never heard of this website so seems like an unrelated whataboutism.
Mate, the whole OP is about that site. Are you sure you know what thread you are in?
Do you know what thread you are in? This thread changed the topic from Pink Floyd to whether or not Russia is self-admittedly genocidal. So if you want to go back to Pink Floyd, you are changing the topic again.
I still see the same old OP, claiming that https://myrotvorets.center/ is the Ukrainian state's "hitlist". It must be some technical glitch, or perhaps we live in two parallel universes. :-)
No it's there, same universe. But again, that's besides the point. We were talking about whether Russia is self-admittedly genocidal. That has nothing to do with Pink Floyd and the original article.
I never confront a guy pointing a gun in my direction. ;-) So think whatever you wish to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_genocide_of_Ukrainians_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
What you are doing here is a form of gish-galloping. If I had the capacity to debunk everyone who says "Russia is committing genocide!" (of which there are countless), then I should be the UN's top investigator. Maybe bring up a specific example?
But what's funny is even in that article, at least three people, including the Senior Legal Counsel of the Human Rights Watch are quoted saying that the evidence for genocide is insufficient.
Their thinking is theirs, as well. I neither impose my perspective, nor accept other views at a face value. One need to earn my respect and trust first.
Wikipedia is hardly a reliable source. I think you bought some kind of bs and you refuse to see how backwards it has you thinking.
Your thinking is yours, obviously. I have no problem with it.
What am I looking for in here?
I answered your question. The document I linked convinced me that Russian Federation has clear intent to wipe out Ukrainians as an ethnic and political entity. 8 months later, an in context of "genocide checklist" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_stages_of_genocide) compared with Russian actions and propaganda, I am even more convinced.
Mind the fact that I present my perspective and factors that influenced it, not any kind of absolute truth. So feel free to ignore it.
I can't read Russian. Which paragraph describes the genocidal intent?
Here's an English translation, if Google or Yandex doesn't work for you. https://uacrisis.org/en/justification-of-genocide-russia-has-openly-declared-its-desire-to-exterminate-ukrainians-as-a-nation
As for the interpretation, it is your job, not mine. As you can see in this sub-thread, the same documents can bring various conclusions, depending on the mind, doing interpretation.
I understand that. But which part of it do you think confesses genocidal intent?
This is indeed an interesting issue. I was born and raised inside (then) Soviet block, and it is somewhat natural for me to decode the Soviet/Russian propaganda newspeak. I also do translations and write articles in this area for years now. But when I try to answer your question, I see that this text – taken separately from my experience and cultural background – is an example of dog-whistling. This is why "interpreting" it for someone from another bubble is a challenge. The best (if deeply imperfect) non-political analogy is a passive-aggressive attitude. Usually, an outsider cannot understand the tension, caused by seemingly neutral statements. It just needs insider's perspective.
Now, when I started looking into it, I may offer you another way to go. There is a useful model of genocide process, formulated as a checklist of actions. This week is rather busy for me, but I see a need to prepare this checklist, supplemented (where they exist) with examples of Russian actions related to Ukraine. I will get it done within the next two weeks and post an English version here. This is the best I can do, sorry.
1: yep
2: idk
3: yep
4: yep, "russian orcs"
5: yep, azov
6: yep
7: has to be
8: idk
9: yep, "russian orcs" again
10: yep
Conclusion: There is indeed a genocide going on in the donbas region.
Is that supposed to be funny?
It can't be true. Orcs aren't real.
<3
🤨