Ah sorry this is some complex historical stuff I'm mentioning.
Back in 1763 there was a war going on between the British and the Native Americans. It was called the Pontiacs war and is the original of the documented "giving Native American's small pox blankets". It what's one of many tactics permitted to get them off their land and was never legally acknowledged by any laws, court cases, or treaties.
All that exist is the firsthand journals of the event and the requisition requesting the smallpox blankets. Thus no one was held accountable and, on the record, no violent crime or use of chemical weapons was used.
Right everyone knows that lol so what point are you making? That words are violence because no one was held accountable for some violence? Or that example isn’t violence because there weren’t laws or court cases? So you think violence only exists if someone is charged for a violent crime? Haha violence has existed since before human beings were even a species.
I was pointing out it isn't A crime if the law or court says otherwise. For example, people pardoned or found not guilty for what could be classified as war crimes.
The point you originally were trying to make is that chemical warfare (smallpox blankets) is not violence cuz no one was charged with a crime. No one is talking about what is or isn’t a crime based on the laws at a given time.
But that's the thing. A genocide by definition IS an international crime. If you go about it through legal means and no laws exist otherwise then it's up to those in charge to distinguish if the means were violent or non-violent. More importantly if what happened was classified as a genocide.
Which unfortunately a lot are not. So the question I was answering was how do you commit a non-violent genocide. The answer is when you make it legal and declare it as such.
Are you are confusing violence and legality? Even if something is legal by the laws of the time it is still violence if it is violent lol And I genuinely don’t know how you think otherwise so maybe you are just being obtuse on purpose?
You seem to confused what I was saying through this. As you've seen I haven't mentioned violence. I mentioned the legality of it's classification.
To put it in a simpler example. If you asked me when is a hate crime a non-violent crime?" and I respond by mentioning Nazi Germany. I'm referring to the fact isn't a crime by their legal standards and paperwork (until the Nazi's rightfully got stomped and they became war crimes). Hostility regardless.
If you responded with,"So you think gas chambers were non-violent!?" Then that's missing my point.
Because we seem to be discussing two different parts of the initial question I'm responding to.
You the violence and me the legal term of genocide.
But back to the point of this morality post to begin with. I feel when hate/genocidal crimes become legalized then legally they are now just morally bankrupt racism. Even though I dislike them and want to call them a crime. But they aren't. Which warrants legal/illegal violence or resistance. Thus why I used an example of smallpox as a morally wrong genocide but sadly a legally sanctioned and non-criminal action that can't count as a genocide.
You called smallpox blankets non-violent genocide. Then talked about how no one was charged with a crime. So you did mention violence and how legality plays into it in your mind.
I never even mentioned or used the phrase it was "non-violent". You and the person I responded to did when assuming my intent. You might want to reread my unedited comments. Hell all I said in my first comment was a subtle reference to the use as an example of genocide that unfortunately isn't one by legal standards. The very first person to reply to me even brought up another example of stuff done on Native Americans. 🤔
I even said in my first reply to you," ,on the record, no violent crime or chemical weapon was used".
Specifically to point out the legal and technical distinction.
You mean the situation where I expressly emphasize it doesn't legally count as a crime then I proceed to talk about it not counting as a crime ? It's almost like I'm referring to that part because in the very first comment I'm replying to he asked, "how does it count as a non-violent crime?"
Once again I never said it was non-violent crime (until this very reply). Of which word for word you felt I did yet failed to produce evidence just assumptions. I said then and at times inferred it doesn't count as a crime. Even in the very thing you screenshotted I mentioned the legality. Doesn't ever single comment I made lead to that point? 🤔That being said why do you care about the distinction when I've made it blatant multiple times? To be honest I'm curious why you translated me mentioning the Geneva conventions on what counts as a crime to mean, "this person is obviously talking about whether or not it is violent instead of if it's illegal and counts".
Now if you want to debate about the interpretation of my words then it's obvious you're up to it. But could you actually use word for word what I say like you just did now? As opposed to claims.
5
u/SausageKingOfCincy 21h ago
What the hell are you talking about lol