[seppin]

> Show me pictures of the same slaughter that you claim the chinese are doing right now.

You are the one setting the bar at "mass slaughter". Sorry, that wasn't and isn't what is being discussed. Mass interment, violence, rape, retaliation against one's family for political crimes, forced sterilization, etc. The evidence for that is legion, you have access to the same information I do. Look it up yourself (if you care).

[nendroid]

Mass Slaughter and genocide are the same thing. You claim I'm denying genocide, so the according to you I'm actually setting the bar LOWER then mass slaughter.

These are your words:

>You are sadly in good company when it comes to the history of denying genocide.

So now you're claiming we aren't even talking about genocide? That there is no mass slaughter? Seems to me ur changing the subject.

[seppin]

The act of mass sterilization is genocide. Again, you are superimposing a single historical standard that simply doesn't apply here.

[nendroid]

Oh. I see. It's an english language problem. Someone doesn't know an english word and is misusing it all over the place. Look up the definition of the word genocide:

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20...

Look, mass sterilization is bad. But genocide? Under that logic anyone who ever got an abortion is a killer. Or maybe anyone who wanted to have a baby but changed their mind...

Colloquially when people use the word genocide they use it in place of mass slaughter, that is the intuition behind the word and that's how people use it. If you use the word genocide in place of mass sterilization, you and the organization who decides to use/define the word in that way are manipulating the perspective of the situation because Everyone is well aware of the intuitive meaning of the word "genocide". When people hear "genocide" they hear "slaughter" and "killing"... mass sterilization is the last thing they think about.

Here's a thought. Rather than use the word "genocide" why don't you just say "mass sterilization." Don't throw down a word that can be mistaken for slaughter for your own manipulative gain. You could have easily, very easily clarified your intent earlier, but you didn't because you are manipulative, or you don't know common colloquial English.

I vote that you're just being manipulative. The rest of your English grammar seems fine, you just want to start something rather than be level headed.

[detaro]

No, the definition of genocide is not so clear-cut just referring to killing people, and that's not a new definition either. E.g. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide and https://www.un.org/ar/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_anal...

You're massively out of line with "Someone doesn't know an english word and is misusing it all over the place." and "I vote that you're just being manipulative. The rest of your English grammar seems fine, you just want to start something rather than be level headed."

[nerdtime]

Guys don't be stupid. Colloquially we all associate genocide with killings, the oxford definition captures this fact. We all know it, you can look up the formal term but when someone utters the word genocide the last thing they think about is sterilization. They think killings. We all know this by common sense. You guys are using technicalities to further an argument for no reason.

In addition to this the technical terms are all different so it's not like I've been proven wrong. My oxford definition actually incorporates the word "killing" so we can argue about technicalities till forever or we can not be stupid and admit that when people hear or use the word "genocide" they think about "killings" "murder" and mass "slaughter"

Under the other definitions basically an abortion clinic becomes a genocide clinic. We don't associate abortion clinics with genocide... nothing is out of line here At all.

You guys can cite the UN definition of genocide but nobody uses that definition in the english language, it's really too big a of an essay for someone to hold in their head. Realistically when you see the word in an article or uttered by a person it's using the oxford definition which is the exact context we're in right now.

[dragonwriter]

> Colloquially we all associate genocide with killings, the oxford definition captures this fact.

No, we don't, and the Merriam-Webster definition [0] captures this fact: “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group”.

As does the Britannica [1] definition: “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race.”

While killing the individual members of a group is a common mechanism of genocide, the killing the “-cide” in the term refers to is the killing or destruction of the group as a group, not the killing of the individuals who constitute the group.

[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide

[1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/genocide

[dragonwriter]

> Look, mass sterilization is bad. But genocide?

Yes, it's exactly genocide. Preventing a people from reproducing is quite an effective way of wiping them out as a people.

[nerdtime]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24922097

[seppin]

> Look, mass sterilization is bad. But

I'm done here.