> 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

> 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.