News

Only the infidel religions.

This is probably just Set sexually assaulting Horus again, and Horus catching his semen and wiping it on some lettuce, which we all know is Set's favourite.* Things should calm down when they've settled it with a boat race, like they did last time.

Perfectly reasonable explanation. Not like these newer religions. Some of them claim to eat the flesh and drink the blood of their God, then sing songs about it. Or they're huge fans of cutting bits off boys' penises. Cannibalistic creeps and weirdos. Keep fighting with each other about their favourite demi-god. Why anyone takes them seriously is beyond me.

Technically none of them

The battle of Armageddon is one of those things that gets floated in abrahamic circles but isn't really textually supported, mostly because it's a prophecy that entered them from the outside, the prophecy originates in the aftermath of an especially gruesome battle fought between the Hittites and Egyptians. It was so brutal that the locals began saying that the next time something like that happened it would be the end of the world and the "prophecy" just spiraled from there.

It's like the antichrist, yes some theological text is out there on the subject, yes there may be some vague "prophecies" about it, but if someone is significantly invested in it pertaining to near future events, they're either a lunatic or someone who's learned to make a steady living off the backs of lunatics.

They're literally just death cultists, and I don't mean like the fictionalised trope of worshippers of archliches and what not, I mean they worship the day of all ends and especially worship the notion that it will come soon and let them point and laugh at all the people who actually went about living in virtue regardless of if it would or wouldn't happen, as the fucking book it's loosely atested in intends for you to do.

I swear to god there is nothing more destructive you can bake into a religion or ideology than some vision of a prophetic future day of great upheaval and vindication, because then the adherents will develop a cancer of inactivity in doing the good work because, "hey, the day of prophecy is coming any day now! Why waste all this effort on building a world where it isn't needed?"

Are there any good ones that actually use the word when they describe what is going on?

Be careful thinking a news source is good, simply because it confirms what you already think.

Genocide is a strong claim to make. Depending on the definition, you need to prove intent.

For example, Leopold the Second's rule of the Congo Free State resulted in the death of millions. A death toll of holocaust proportions, which leads some respected historians to call it a holocaust, but not genocide. Genocide requires intent, and it's not clear they intended to wipe out a large part of an entire people. Think the difference between homicide and manslaughter.

I know a lot of journalism has gone to shit, a lot of news media are obviously biased(the telegraph absolutely is), and that we're used to news and opinion being interchangeable. But reputable journalists are avoiding calling what's happening genocide, because they want to at least try and be as neutral as possible. It's not their job to make that judgement call. A journalist isn't an expert on international law. They're an expert on reporting what they saw, read, or heard. They can show and tell what's happening, what people are saying, and we get to decide if it's genocide.

That's why the BBC got a lot of shit for not calling Hamas terrorists but militants. Now, obviously the BBC is often deeply flawed, but they were right to not call Hamas terrorists. Hamas are terrorists, but it's not a journalist's job to make that judgement call for me. Their job is to simply report on what they saw happen, like a court stenographer.

To be clear, that doesn't mean that they can't or shouldn't be citing people who do call it genocide. It's just that the journalists themselves shouldn't be making this claim if they care about journalistic principles.

Eg.

"Man claims he was eating an apple and that the apple was red." = good journalism. The journalist doesn't know what happened, they're simply reporting what the man said.

"Video appears to show man claim he was eating an apple and that it was red." = even better although not always feasible.

"Man claims the apple he was eating was red." = possibly not so great journalism. Did the journalist see the man eating the apple? The journalist failed to mention that it was the man who claimed he was eating an apple.

"The man ate a red apple." = bad journalism. The journalist didn't see the man eat an apple. They didn't see if the apple was red. They are reporting it as a fact, when the only fact is what they heard the man say, and they should make that clear.

Here's a _relatively _good example of a _relatively _good article on this current situation:

https://time.com/6334409/is-whats-happening-gaza-genocide-experts/

The journalist isn't saying what they think. They're reporting on what experts say, and some of them are saying it is genocide. Others are not certain it's genocide, because it doesn't fit a particular legal definition, but saying that it may in practice be genocidal despite a lack of clear intent. It is then left to you, to decide if you do or don't believe them.