this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2026
1 points (100.0% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
1382 readers
9 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No. Intent is the goal when taking a certain action. The intent of sending people to gas chambers, killing all the buffalo, arming ethnic malitias in Rwanda was the destruction of "the other".
This is a non point. Ethnic cleansing is still a crime against humanity the fact morons try and rationalise death marches does not suddenly make all crimes against humanity genocide. If Quebec decided to criminalise speaking English that would be a form of Ethnic cleansing but it sure as shit isn't genocide. Equating these 2 things is simply a softer form of genocide trivialisation(denial) (like double genocide theory).
Another non point. Morons cherry picking history to try downplay one of the single most documented genocides in history does nothing to further your point that genocide and Ethnic cleansing are synonymous or should be.
I would wait on the analysis of legal experts in the field yes (not specifically the icj) as well as analyse the facts themselves against the requirements for genocide. Which is what everyone should do. Believing all accusations at face value is moronic.
Alright, that's fair.
Well anyways, now that you've pointed out the flaws in my thinking on this specific point, and the very troubling implications of these flaws, and I can now say that I more or less agree with you… wanna look at cat videos or something?