It’s not so much that some people are excluded, but rather that class war won’t solve a lot of problems specific to (intersections of) minority groups. That’s a point that’s pretty easy to miss if you’re not part of a discriminated minority, even if you’re aware of the need for class war.
randomname01
joined 2 years ago
Leaving everything else aside, South Africa went from having one of the worst flags in the world to having one of the best.
This is legitimately confusing. Adding hate for a Linux DE to an established racist ass cartoon? Truly the most confusingly intersectional hate post I’ve ever seen.
Truly no way this could enforce and whitewash discrimination.
I’m not saying it’s a leap - I’m saying that it’s not proven, which would have to be the case for it to be qualified as a genocide.
There’s also a difference between murder with premeditation, murder without premeditation and manslaughter - all three are the death of someone at someone else’s hands, all three are crimes, but that doesn’t make them the same thing. Intentionality matters in law.
The intent is a crucial aspect of the definition of genocide, which was internationally ratified in the Genocide Convention. Suddenly ignoring that when it’s politically expedient is hugely problematic.
I also want to emphasise that something not being a genocide doesn’t mean it can’t be horrible, a crime against humanity or anything else. It’s not a defence in any way, but a matter of using the correct (legally accepted) name.
It’s been a while since I read about this, so I don’t have any sources on hand I can point to right now. The core point is that there isn’t really any proof that the Soviets’ goal was to eliminate Ukrainians as a group, which is the main requirement to classify something as a genocide.
Of course, that doesn’t mean the Holodomor didn’t happen or that the USSR isn’t to blame, only that the intent wasn’t to eradicate a people.
I hope that’s a decent starting point for you to read up on this, in case you’re interested.
Most historians don’t consider this a genocide, so this is a purely political move. If Russia hadn’t invaded Ukraine this wouldn’t have happened.
The interesting thing is, the USSR did commit a genocide in Ukraine, the deportation of the Crimean Tatars, but this one isn’t recognised because it’s less known and therefore less politically expedient.
It’s legitimately scary to see how many governments disregard historical analysis to score some cheap “dunking on Russia” points, thereby hollowing out the actual definition of what a genocide is. Like, there are a thousand legitimate ways to condemn Russia, including an actual genocide, so why do this? It’s baffling and frustrating.
More than 50% voted for Reagan, and older people vote more conservatively in general. I’m well aware that there were leftist people then (arguably more than nowadays), but as a generation they royally fucked us. That’s the point, and you’re acting like we’re calling out your grandma specifically lol.
No, that generation voted for conservative politicians who lead us directly to where we are now. I know the real blame lies with the politicians and capital class, but Reagan was elected in an absolute landslide - everyday boomers are not blameless.
I agree, but racism, sexism, … won’t disappear just by abolishing the capital class. It is a huge step towards it, but not the absolute final goal.