“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented” is a quote by Elie Wiesel from his 1986 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech.
Being "ok" with anything is completely subjective and a personal choice. There is no law that says I have to have an opinion on every subject.
I'm against innocent people being hurt or killed in general.
My experience on this platform tells me if a person or persons set out to kill every Trump supporter, or murder every billionaire, you people would be celebrating. Hypothetical I admit, but it's my opinion most of you would be ok with genocide as long as it targets people you don't like/support.
Dude, there's like less than 2000 billionaires in the entire world. They aren't a race of people, or ethnic groups.
Besides, billionaires are the people sticking their boot on everybody's neck, and creating this dupshit class war. At some point people take a stand against oppression. Violence from the oppressed toward their oppressors is not in any way the same thing.
Nobody says, well, golly,, I sure wish those slaves would have found peaceful ways to revolt against their slave owners.
They are a group of people who have something in common. If you're trying to kill them for that thing(s), that's genocide. You can sugar coat it in anyway that makes you comfortable, I guess.
Im not trying to do anything, except correct your delusional definition of genocide. I considered including an actual definition of genocide in my comment, but ultimately didn't. Someone else already did, and you basically threw out a non sequitur about how definitions are made up.
You're getting down voted bcz you are wrong, and you just keep doubling down. But, I guess if it makes you feel superior to other people, keep on keeping on.
People already refuted your point, and you said the definition is made up. You've literally moved the goal posts of your argument so it can't be wrong bcz in your own words "it's a definition, like all definitions". It's a bad faith argument.
If you want to be against killing people, that's fine. People are simply pointing out that murdering billionaires doesn't meet the definition of genocide.
If you want a word for murdering billionaires, feel free to make up a new one.
The legal term “genocide” refers to certain acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
Cool. Don't care about billionaires, and I care equally what some museums definition is.
And before you run to your search engine of choice to find the "official" definition, know I don't care about that either. Definitions are literally (like everything else) just made up. A group of people came together and said "this word means this because we say so". I can decide what groups fall under the definition of genocide if I so choose. And you are also welcome to accept whatever definition you so choose.
I would think the Holocaust Museum would have a better definition of what constitutes a genocide than whatever random definition some bad-faith dipshit on lemmy cooked up in their own head to support their half-baked and lazy position. nobody should take your opinion on this matter seriously.
I’m against innocent people being hurt or killed in general.
Dude, you're just saying that without knowing all the details. Why don't you maybe tap the breaks and sit on the sidelines. There's a lot of nuance you're missing with this statement and a lot of good people you're offending with your off-the-cuff ignorant take.
Learn to just not have an opinion for a moment. Quit trying to make the injury and killing of innocent people so political.
My experience on this platform tells me if a person or persons set out to kill every Trump supporter, or murder every billionaire, you people would be celebrating.
You're literally paying for it! Do you not feel anything for the direct consequences of your actions?
The fact that you refuse to accept responsibility for your own actions doesn't change the fact that you are complicit. You have to grow up and learn to take responsibility for what is being done in your name with your tax dollars, or they're just going to keep killing in your name using your tax dollars. It's really that simple.
You want me to stop because I'm giving voice to your own guilt, because you know I'm right.
I feel you may be somewhat mentally unstable, so discussing anything with you may be dangerous.
I have taken no action. I have no say in how my taxes are spent, thus I feel no guilt.
You are using "direct" incorrectly. I have taken no direct action. The person or persons who used my money in such a manner is the one taking direct action.
Supposedly this is a democracy, implying you do have a say. Furthermore, you choose to pay your taxes. You choose to go to work. You choose to buy commodities. You choose to participate in society. You choose to obey. You can stop. Yes, at great personal cost, but you can stop.
You aren't actually powerless.
You have decided that the personal costs are too great to act, and the way you're talking to me makes me certain you are guilty.
We all are complicit and we all have to reconcile with this. Running from your complicity by personally attacking me for giving voice to your own guilt won't change that.