3 ms·

> 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

by _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.

by _kbh_ 4y ago

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.