[ineptech]

There is no authoritative body on the definitions of words. More generally, if genocide can mean "not killling, but very bad" then it is not much use except as an epithet - a negatively-loaded bomb to be lobbed in partisan debates at people who you think are doing something very bad. Virtually every controversial policy could be described as, "Causing serious bodily or mental harm to" some group.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> There is no authoritative body on the definitions of words.

false: there are a few. They aren't always correct, but they're more correct than you personally

> More generally, if genocide can mean...

there is no question what it means, you simply personally disagree with it

and since you definitely aren't an authoritative body on the definition of words, your personal pedantic insistence that the word mean only what the strict etymological roots imply, rather than how people actually use it, is irrelevant

> a negatively-loaded bomb to be lobbed in partisan debates

it's quite telling that you seem to view usage of the term "cultural genocide" to refer to cultural genocide as a bigger issue than actual cultural genocide

don't like people using the correct term to refer to the action? maybe get those perpetrating the action to stop, instead of telling everyone we're using the wrong words to describe it.

[dirtyid]

The definition, US propaganda under Pompeo as head of State tried (and failed to meet), was UN's convention on genocide, which would trigger legal responses on member states. The TLDR is Pompeo laundered very tortured legal analysis through Zenz and some Gulanist Saudi think tank (IIRC) to try insinuate PRC met the definition when most credible international lawyers saw through the bullshit, but noted PRC actions closer to cultural genocide, which does NOT have definition at UN, and hence not prosecutable. The result is PRC actions merely labelled as potential human rights abuses at UN, aka business as usual, and a bunch of useful idiots who ate Pompeo's bait thinking PRC actually met the definition of genocide when it manifestly did not. And buy business as usual, of human rights abuses / cultural genocide, it puts PRC XJ actions in league with behaviours of the west. Hence you don't hear much about the XJ campaign anymore from western propaganda, because the propaganda was mostly useful if the genocide label stuck at UN, and made PRC actions more nefarious not equal to west. Now it's mostly used by US to justify XJ sanctions and trying to partners onboard to cripple XJ industry like solar, cotton, agriculture.