• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 days ago

    The reason it’s become a ‘litmus test’ is because we generally agree in the modern day that genocide is bad.

    No, the litmus test is whether you call something a genocide, even if it doesn’t meet the definition.

    A proper argument:

    1. defines genocide
    2. shows evidence that an event matches the definition from 1
    3. shows evidence where it doesn’t match the definition from 1, with an explanation why it still meets the criteria

    But instead, what we get is something that vaguely resembles genocide if taken out of context because normal people hate genocide and will likely not look too closely into the details if they don’t like the group that’s being accused.

    For example, is the current focus on deportation from the US a genocide? Most reasonable people would say no, but if you dislike the US enough, you could be convinced that it is.

    From what I’ve read of the Uyghur situation, it’s close enough, but perhaps “forced assimilation” or even “cultural genocide” is more appropriate. It’s difficult to know the full extent given how tightly the CCP controls information, so maybe it qualities for the UN definition of genocide.

    But pretty much every discussion online gets shut down if someone fails the litmus test. I get that a lot of people aren’t arguing in good faith, but it’s important to remember that it goes both ways.