Comment Deleted

0

“genocide of queer people” be so fr dawg

-3

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #1 28w

Hey so Reagan and his entire administration literally let millions of gay people die of aids because it was “God’s punishment” but ok

11

even taking the headline at face value. “early stages” ≠ genocide. not everything is a genocide. we can be opposed to something without using the most maximalist language to describe everything

-1

Anonymous OP 28w

we’re stretching this definition wayyyyy past its limits man

-2

Anonymous #1 28w

Buddy tf you mean stretching it? You think that willfully letting millions of gay people die is not an act of genocide? The Reagan administration LET IT HAPPEN AND LAUGHED

7

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous OP 28w

being slow to respond to a crisis with a social stigma attached is simply not the same as genociding a group of people

-1

yes im aware of the definition bud

-1

Anonymous #1 28w

Actually it is, and LAUGHING about it especially is

1

Anonymous OP 28w

its simply not. if you want to know what a genocide looks like look at rwanda where hundreds of thousands were slaughtered with machetes. thats an actual genocide, not a public policy failure

-1

Comment Deleted

0

Reading is difficult for some people it seems

6

Comment Deleted

0

In b4 the mental gymnastics

4

i mean if the argument is its a genocide but it wasnt that bad i still disagree but thats better lmao

-1

Anonymous #1 28w

im going to crash out

2

Comment Deleted

0

no, my argument is that its bad and also not a genocide. things can be bad without being genocide. the intent to destroy isnt there, the inflicting harm isnt there, the scale of any common understanding of genocide isnt there, etc

-1

Comment Deleted

0

Well they don’t see trans people as equals, so mistreatment is justified in their head

6

chill dawg. as i said in this very comment section, i think the treatment of queer people is bad! i dont deny systematic ill treatment. i just dont think it constitutes a genocide!! this is the problem with the obsession with terms: it alienates people who agree with you on everything except the actual word lmao

0

Comment Deleted

0

yeah this is my exact point. “if you dont call it a genocide youre minimizing it” thats exactly why staking everything on the word is stupid. i could agree 100% with you about the problem and solutions but if i dont think its a genocide somehow its “minimized”

-1

it just shows that the use of the word genocide here isnt used to convey an actual definition but rather a moral gravity

-1

Comment Deleted

0

stop and think for 2 seconds dawg. the level of harm that would constitute a genocide is what im referring to there, not the level of harm present in systemic oppression

0

Comment Deleted

0

if its a genocide then its the most mild genocide ever committed and the moral weight of that word essentially disappears

0

Comment Deleted

0

i mean its true. if i accept this is a genocide, then on the scale of genocides this ranks dead last in severity, and would significantly broaden what a genocide looks like and the moral weight of genocide. thats fine but be aware thats what this is doing

0

Comment Deleted

0

oh brother give me a break lmao. you realize the implications of the rhetoric so you switch to the “straight people cant argue with queer people” approach, just weak man

0

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

i’ll accept its a genocide if you accept it significantly reduces the moral weight of the term and widens the common view of genocide to include things the average person would consider mild in the context of genocides

0

the condescension is crazy man, you people are insufferable

0