4 ms·

This is a classic example of a Motte-and-Bailey argument. Everyone knows what "genocide" means. It means an attempt to murder an entire group of people. That's

This is a classic example of a Motte-and-Bailey argument. Everyone knows what "genocide" means. It means an attempt to murder an entire group of people. That's why the word ends in "-cide," like "homicide," "suicide," "regicide," "fratricide" and other words that have to do with killing. When you say that Russia is committing genocide, everyone thinks you're saying that Russia is attempting to kill every single person in Ukraine. That's what the word means in the English language, as understood by the gobal community of native speakers. The people using the word "genocide" are doing so precisely because the word has such a strong connotation. They want people to make the connection to the Holocaust, Rwanda, and other cases of mass murder of an entire people. However, that comparison is obviously absurd, because Russia isn't trying to wipe out the Ukrainian population. So when pressed, defenders of the use of the term "genocide" retreat to a much narrower argument. They argue that according to a particular reading of the Genocide Convention, Russian actions fall into some technical definition of "genocide" - a definition that has absolutely nothing to do with how normal people understand the term. Now, that reading of the Genocide Convention is an enormous stretch, but people who want to use the word "genocide" fall back to it. But of course, nobody is interested in a highly tendentious, dubious reading of the Genocide Convention. People are interested in whether Russia is committing "genocide" as the word is actually understood by real people. I'll also add that even going by the Genocide Convention, the claim that Russia is committing genocide is still absurd. I don't want to get into it in detail, because it's a technical argument that's unrelated to what people actually care about. However, I'll just point out that the Ukrainian government is claiming that literally every Ukrainian child in Russia is abducted. Anyone who knows anything about Ukraine and Russia knows how absurd that claim is. There are very tight familial connections between Russians and Ukrainians (they were part of the same country for most of the last 400 years, after all). Because of that, Russia is the #1 destination for Ukrainian refugees. A lot of people escaping the violence have gone to live with family in Russia. Using that to accuse Russia of genocide is a really bold rhetorical gambit.

SyzygistSix 4y ago
>Everyone knows what "genocide" means. It means an attempt to murder an entire group of people. It doesn't mean that. It means to annihilate a culture or people. That can be done by killing them or it can be done by destroying their culture and making their language, religion, holidays, culture, and cultural identity illegal or otherwise unable to exist. That includes forced assimilation.
- DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
  Actually, the UN explicitly says that forced cultural assimilation is not genocide[0]: > Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. Etymologically, the word genocide comes from "genus" (roughly meaning "race") and "-cide" (meaning "killing"). It was invented to describe the Holocaust, and every event that is widely accepted as being a genocide has been an attempt to murder an entire group of people. 0. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
Huh1337 4y ago
Russians are absolutely doing genocide. They are removing the Ukrainian language, history and culture, they are burning Ukrainian schoolbooks, they are stealing children and re-teaching them to be Russians, they are targeting Ukrainians based on their nationality and killing them. Who doesn't sing the Russian anthem gets tortured.
- DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
  Even if your claims about Russia trying to destroy the Ukrainian language and Ukrainian culture were true, that would not be genocide. And just to give you some perspective, the claims you're making almost exactly mirror Putin's equally spurious (and disingenuous) claims that the Ukrainian government was trying to commit genocide against Russian speakers in Ukraine. His claim was based on attempts by the Ukrainian government to remove traces of Russian culture from eastern Ukraine (for example, by promoting the Ukrainian language over the Russian language in schools, by renaming cities, and by removing statues to cultural and historical figures associated with Russia), and on the Ukrainian government's shelling of Donetsk over the last 8 years. Putin is engaged in the exact same abuse of the term "genocide" that you're engaging in.
  - Huh1337 4y ago
    So how come there's so many videos of these untrue things? How come the Russians themselves are saying they're doing it on their own state TV and celebrate it? I don't care about Putin's claims. There's a lot of Russian-speaking Ukrainian refugees where I live (there's hundreds thousands of them), I still haven't found one who felt like they were in any way targeted by the Ukrainian government or that their culture was being replaced. Now they hate Russia and every single one I asked has vowed to learn Ukrainian and erase any parts of Russian culture from their lives.
    - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
      > Now they hate Russia and every single one I asked has vowed to learn Ukrainian and erase any parts of Russian culture from their lives. I know a few Ukrainian refugees. They speak Russian as their native language, and I've often seen them hanging out and chatting with Russians. I've talked to one of them quite a bit about his political beliefs. He obviously doesn't support the Russian invasion of his country, but he's also very unhappy with the Ukrainian government (particularly since what happened in 2014), and he doesn't like Ukrainian nationalists (partly because of the way they try to restrict minority languages in the country, including Russian and Hungarian).
_kbh_ 4y ago
> This is a classic example of a Motte-and-Bailey argument. I think this is a classic "you dont know what genocide actually means" argument. > Everyone knows what "genocide" means. It means an attempt to murder an entire group of people. That's why the word ends in "-cide," like "homicide," "suicide," "regicide," "fratricide" and other words that have to do with killing. When you say that Russia is committing genocide, everyone thinks you're saying that Russia is attempting to kill every single person in Ukraine. That's what the word means in the English language, as understood by the gobal community of native speakers. But thats not what the word _actually_ means, people using a world incorrectly does not change its _actual_ meaning. > The people using the word "genocide" are doing so precisely because the word has such a strong connotation. They want people to make the connection to the Holocaust, Rwanda, and other cases of mass murder of an entire people. However, that comparison is obviously absurd, because Russia isn't trying to wipe out the Ukrainian population. People use the word genocide because thats exactly what Russia is committing, its a heinous act and hard to face, just like raping and torturing children, but Russia is doing all of these things in Ukraine.
- DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
  > But thats not what the word _actually_ means, people using a world incorrectly does not change its _actual_ meaning. It's how virtually every native speaker of English understands the word. It's what the people accusing Russia of genocide want people to think. The word "genocide" carries enormous weight, precisely because it is understood as meaning mass murder on the scale of the Holocaust, one of the most evil crimes ever committed. That makes the word very attractive as a rhetorical tool, particularly for people who don't mind massively exaggerating. It's a Motte-and-Bailey argument because the people using the term want others to think of the Holocaust, but when challenged, they retreat back to arguing a much narrower position. They argue, as you're doing, that everyone misunderstands the word "genocide," so it's fine to use it for things that have nothing to do with what everyone thinks of as genocide.[0] Once the argument ends and they feel they've defended their narrow position, they go back to shouting "genocide," knowing that everyone will understand it to mean mass murder. The narrow position is only used as a fallback when the broad, shocking claim they want to make comes under attack. 0. Their argument isn't even technically correct - they're misreading the Genocide Convention - but that's largely beside the point.

SyzygistSix 4y ago

>Everyone knows what "genocide" means. It means an attempt to murder an entire group of people. It doesn't mean that. It means to annihilate a culture or people. That can be done by killing them or it can be done by destroying their culture and making their language, religion, holidays, culture, and cultural identity illegal or otherwise unable to exist. That includes forced assimilation.

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
Actually, the UN explicitly says that forced cultural assimilation is not genocide[0]: > Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. Etymologically, the word genocide comes from "genus" (roughly meaning "race") and "-cide" (meaning "killing"). It was invented to describe the Holocaust, and every event that is widely accepted as being a genocide has been an attempt to murder an entire group of people. 0. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

Huh1337 4y ago

Russians are absolutely doing genocide. They are removing the Ukrainian language, history and culture, they are burning Ukrainian schoolbooks, they are stealing children and re-teaching them to be Russians, they are targeting Ukrainians based on their nationality and killing them. Who doesn't sing the Russian anthem gets tortured.

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
Even if your claims about Russia trying to destroy the Ukrainian language and Ukrainian culture were true, that would not be genocide. And just to give you some perspective, the claims you're making almost exactly mirror Putin's equally spurious (and disingenuous) claims that the Ukrainian government was trying to commit genocide against Russian speakers in Ukraine. His claim was based on attempts by the Ukrainian government to remove traces of Russian culture from eastern Ukraine (for example, by promoting the Ukrainian language over the Russian language in schools, by renaming cities, and by removing statues to cultural and historical figures associated with Russia), and on the Ukrainian government's shelling of Donetsk over the last 8 years. Putin is engaged in the exact same abuse of the term "genocide" that you're engaging in.
- Huh1337 4y ago
  So how come there's so many videos of these untrue things? How come the Russians themselves are saying they're doing it on their own state TV and celebrate it? I don't care about Putin's claims. There's a lot of Russian-speaking Ukrainian refugees where I live (there's hundreds thousands of them), I still haven't found one who felt like they were in any way targeted by the Ukrainian government or that their culture was being replaced. Now they hate Russia and every single one I asked has vowed to learn Ukrainian and erase any parts of Russian culture from their lives.
  - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
    > Now they hate Russia and every single one I asked has vowed to learn Ukrainian and erase any parts of Russian culture from their lives. I know a few Ukrainian refugees. They speak Russian as their native language, and I've often seen them hanging out and chatting with Russians. I've talked to one of them quite a bit about his political beliefs. He obviously doesn't support the Russian invasion of his country, but he's also very unhappy with the Ukrainian government (particularly since what happened in 2014), and he doesn't like Ukrainian nationalists (partly because of the way they try to restrict minority languages in the country, including Russian and Hungarian).

_kbh_ 4y ago

> This is a classic example of a Motte-and-Bailey argument. I think this is a classic "you dont know what genocide actually means" argument. > Everyone knows what "genocide" means. It means an attempt to murder an entire group of people. That's why the word ends in "-cide," like "homicide," "suicide," "regicide," "fratricide" and other words that have to do with killing. When you say that Russia is committing genocide, everyone thinks you're saying that Russia is attempting to kill every single person in Ukraine. That's what the word means in the English language, as understood by the gobal community of native speakers. But thats not what the word _actually_ means, people using a world incorrectly does not change its _actual_ meaning. > The people using the word "genocide" are doing so precisely because the word has such a strong connotation. They want people to make the connection to the Holocaust, Rwanda, and other cases of mass murder of an entire people. However, that comparison is obviously absurd, because Russia isn't trying to wipe out the Ukrainian population. People use the word genocide because thats exactly what Russia is committing, its a heinous act and hard to face, just like raping and torturing children, but Russia is doing all of these things in Ukraine.

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
> But thats not what the word _actually_ means, people using a world incorrectly does not change its _actual_ meaning. It's how virtually every native speaker of English understands the word. It's what the people accusing Russia of genocide want people to think. The word "genocide" carries enormous weight, precisely because it is understood as meaning mass murder on the scale of the Holocaust, one of the most evil crimes ever committed. That makes the word very attractive as a rhetorical tool, particularly for people who don't mind massively exaggerating. It's a Motte-and-Bailey argument because the people using the term want others to think of the Holocaust, but when challenged, they retreat back to arguing a much narrower position. They argue, as you're doing, that everyone misunderstands the word "genocide," so it's fine to use it for things that have nothing to do with what everyone thinks of as genocide.[0] Once the argument ends and they feel they've defended their narrow position, they go back to shouting "genocide," knowing that everyone will understand it to mean mass murder. The narrow position is only used as a fallback when the broad, shocking claim they want to make comes under attack. 0. Their argument isn't even technically correct - they're misreading the Genocide Convention - but that's largely beside the point.