Anonymous #1 2w

your ignorance and sociopathy is showing.

8

Anonymous #2 2w

“genocide of queer people” be so fr dawg

-3

Anonymous #2 2w

stfu.

6

Anonymous #1 2w

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

Anonymous #2 2w

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 #1 2w

you can also discuss these issues without engaging in genocide denialism out of your own disbelief.

5

Anonymous OP 2w

we’re stretching this definition wayyyyy past its limits man

-2

Anonymous #1 2w

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

Anonymous #1 2w

No, we’re not. You just willingly engage in denialism

9

Anonymous #2 2w

Keywords: “in whole or in part”

4

Anonymous #1 2w

like I said, ignorance and sociopathy. (Or just ignorance and apathy, at the least)

4

Anonymous OP 2w

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

-1

Anonymous #2 2w

yes im aware of the definition bud

-1

Anonymous #1 2w

apparently you’re not though, “bud”

3

Anonymous #1 2w

Actually it is, and LAUGHING about it especially is

1

Anonymous OP 2w

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

Anonymous #1 2w

as the UN has repeatedly stated, a genocide is not determined solely by fatalities. do you need the picture again?

1

Anonymous #2 2w

Reading is difficult for some people it seems

6

Anonymous #2 2w

Let’s go through it together: “…, Genocide means *any* of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, *in whole or in part*,…

1

Anonymous #2 2w

1. Killing members of the group 2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group 3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole or in part 4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group 5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

1

Anonymous #2 2w

In b4 the mental gymnastics

4

Anonymous #2 2w

the *only* argument you could make is that our identities are not explicitly covered in the “national, ethnical, racial, or religious” line, which then would bring this argument to a conversation of “do you believe that it only classifies as genocide when it occurs to one type of demographic and not another?”

5

Anonymous OP 2w

it indeed is, especially for genocide denialists (or sympathizers)

4

Anonymous #2 2w

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

-1

Anonymous #1 2w

im going to crash out

2

Anonymous #1 2w

that’s YOUR argument, my argument is that you’re seemingly a sympathizer.

3

Anonymous #2 2w

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

Anonymous #1 2w

i couldn’t give less of a fuck if you personally think it is not a genocide, all that does is confirm my fear of you being a denialist. you’re outright denying the prevalence of systemic harm committed towards our community, outright denying the systemic oppression we’ve faced both historically and presently, and directly running propaganda in favor of genocide.

3

Anonymous #2 2w

your individual perspective on whether something is or isn’t a genocide is worthless, all it does is determine whether you’re a genocide sympathizer/denialist or not. you are not more important than the historians and sociologists who dedicate their lives to studying and combatting genocide, no where near.

5

Anonymous #1 2w

I recommend you get your head out of your ass, and stop playing defense for genocide. all that does is reflect on you as a person.

6

Anonymous #1 2w

and hell how are you going to sit there and claim the intent to destroy isn’t there? the AIDS crisis in the 80s was directly orchestrated by the Reagan administration as OP mentioned, and that has been comprehensively documented; and we’re actively targeting the identities of trans people in public (revoking passports, licenses, access to public services, and even as far as classifying as domestic terrorism under the guise of “radical gender ideology” The fuck is wrong with you?

6

Anonymous #2 2w

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

6

Anonymous OP 2w

No wonder why there’s so many people simping for genocide, they’re so fucking sensitive that they’re somehow pressed by our mere existence. Hell, the SC just legalized conversion therapy. nothing to say anymore, huh 1?

4

Anonymous #2 2w

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

Anonymous #1 2w

the issue here is your willful minimization of the oppression we face, based on what? not wanting to recognize that we’re facing a growing genocide? you can’t complain about semantics or rhetoric when you ignore the fundamental definition of genocide, as well as wrongfully claim there is no intent to destroy In order to do so.

1

Anonymous #2 2w

do you engage in this behavior towards any other ongoing genocides? or historical ones for that matter?

1

Anonymous #2 2w

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

Anonymous #1 2w

or to put it another way: have you ever considered that you might be wrong in this belief?

1

Anonymous #2 2w

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

-1

Anonymous #1 2w

No, I specifically focused on you attempted to wrongfully claim no intent to destroy. you need this to be solely about the term genocide, when it’s about your dismissal of intention and minimization of systemic oppression. you even went as far as to say “the inflicting harm isn’t there”

1

Anonymous #1 2w

as you sit here continually propagandizing.

1

Anonymous #1 2w

you can’t exactly reframe your own stance after getting called out, when there’s receipts right here for us all to see.

1

Anonymous #2 2w

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

Anonymous #1 2w

two things then: 1. Choose your words better, you specifically denied the intent to destroy and the infliction of harm. 2. You’re still wrong. The UN has affirmed that genocide is not determined by death count, hence why the frequent attempts of many sympathizers to use such rhetoric to dismiss the genocide of Palestinians is not valid.

1

Anonymous #1 2w

like I asked earlier, have you ever considered that you might be wrong on this topic? Also let me guess, you’re cisgender and/or heterosexual, right?

1

Anonymous #2 2w

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

0

Anonymous #1 2w

you’re showcasing your apathy. I was correct in assuming you’re both straight and cis, wasn’t I?

1

Anonymous #2 2w

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

Anonymous #1 2w

it’s really interesting how you, a straight cisgendered person, insists on coming here and telling us, members of the queer community who actually live through this oppression, what is and isn’t valid. as I said, all you’re doing is showcasing your ignorance and apathy, or sociopathy; take your pick.

1

Anonymous OP 2w

I’m about ready to crash out with you at this rate.

1

Anonymous #2 2w

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

Anonymous #1 2w

I didn’t say straight people can’t argue with us, I said you have no capability to diminish our experiences. and no, I’ve repeatedly stated how your rhetoric is inherently dismissive and built upon denialism; hence why you’ve had to repeatedly redefine your own argument and introduce a variety of new goalposts in order to twist your way out of acknowledging your guilt. unless are you ready to address how you directly denied the infliction of harm and intention to destroy?

1

Anonymous #1 2w

maybe instead of being an apathetic denialist scumbag, you could just acknowledge your ignorance on this topic and stop regurgitating propaganda. you being straight and cis is just the cherry on top.

1

Anonymous #2 2w

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

Anonymous #2 2w

the condescension is crazy man, you people are insufferable

0

Anonymous #1 2w

as I already said, I couldn’t give less of a fuck about your individual perspective on whether it is or is not a genocide, especially since it’s rooted in this imbecilic framework of comparisons that not even the United Nations adopts. Since you apparently need a reminder: your perspective on genocide is essentially meaningless, as you sit here combatting the perspective and stance of scholars who dedicate their lives to this topic.

1

Anonymous #1 2w

“you people” tell us how you really feel, go ahead, let the mask come off fully…

1