Comment by gdy | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gdy | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think you are using 'genocidal' frivolously here.

'I don't think we tried to destroy the notion of "iraq" or of being "iraqi."'

That's not what genocide is.[0] Destroying 'notions' isn't a genocide. (That's without delving into argument of whether or not Putin's actions fit such description.)

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

"I don't remember America violently putting down opposition to the war at home"

I don't think there was much opposition[1] thanks to American free mass media[2] and ones who did protest occasionally got arrested. [3][4] Situation in Russia now is harsher, of course, but still.

"I could be convinced that we were worse than I think."

Don't really want to, my point is that Hitler has set a pretty high bar and both Bush and Putin failed to reach it. So far at least :( Look at the genocide in Rwanda, that's what qualifies as a good attempt.

As a side note, do you remember Bush's Freudian slip when he said Iraq instead of Ukraine? The laugh in the audience is pretty disturbing [5]. I'd expect somber silence full of regret.

[0] https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War#...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-th...

[3] http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/17/sprj.irq.antiw...

[4] http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/01/19/sproj.irq.peace.protest...

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y23mTSviCZo

Why is he using it frivolously? He says Bush didn't do any of those things.

> Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Keep in mind: Putin does do these things. Ukrainian children are separated from their families and placed with Russian families to be raised as Russians. That's genocide. Adult Ukrainians have reportedly also been deported and made to live as Russians on the other side of Russia, separate from other Ukrainians. There's plenty of talk in the Russian media that all Ukrainians believe Ukrainian is a valid ethnicity should be killed. And we've seen the result of massacres.

Sure, Putin doesn't do industrial scale murder of millions the way Hitler did, but as you point out, genocide is broader than that.

"Ukrainian children are separated from their families"

Really? Would you leave an orphan in the war zone or move them to a safe place? Calling that a 'genocide' is cynical distortion and serves only Ukrainian propaganda.

"Adult Ukrainians have reportedly also been deported "

"Reportedly"?

"and made to live as Russians"

What does it even mean? Drinking vodka and playing balalaika?

"There's plenty of talk in the Russian media that all Ukrainians believe Ukrainian is a valid ethnicity should be killed."

"Plenty"? I don't know what you are talking about but just go to Ukrainian segment of Facebook, which allowed hate speech against Russians, and tons of genocidal fantasies.

> Would you leave an orphan in the war zone or move them to a safe place?

No, I would reunite them with their families. Intentionally refusing to do so and leaving them with Russian families to raise as Russians is genocide. You don't get to whitewash that.

This is not some people on Facebook; the UN has condemned it, the ICC issued arrest warrants, it's widely documented. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abductions_in_the_Russia... for some sources.

Same with the other stuff. Your rhetoric doesn't change the facts.

> Your rhetoric doesn't change the facts.

Once you understand someone is delusional, there is no point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_genocide_of_Ukr...

7 countries voted that it is, and prominent historians at ivy league institutions (you know those one's people badly want to get into so they can learn from the worlds top experts) have said it definitely is.

As far as I'm concerned the matter is pretty settled.

The person you're talking to doesn't have any desire at all in understanding you, nor do they have any desire to create the best argument against themselves and respond to that.

"7 countries voted that it is"

That's 7 out 193 countries. Hmm, I wonder why.

By the way, the Ukraine itself didn't recognize the obvious genocide of Armenians by Turkey during WW1.[0] Countries can be very flexible when recognizing or not recognizing something as genocide is in their interest.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide#Internationa...

I'm sure you understand why. Ukraine is in a vulnerable position right now and needs all the allies it can get. Alienating Turkey would be foolish. And considering the Armenian genocide happened a long time ago, it's not exactly worth it to bring this up now. Turkey, especially under Erdogan, is definitely a problematic country, but not one that either Ukraine or NATO can afford to alienate right now. Current issues take precedence over the atrocities of the past.

"I'm sure you understand why. Ukraine is in a vulnerable position right now"

Seriously? The Ukraine had over 30 years of independence for that.

What does that have to do with anything? Is this some kind of purity test for you? During their 30 years of independence, Ukraine has struggled with corruption, authoritarianism, two revolutions against authoritarianism, and a Russian invasion. They've had bigger fish to fry at home than to cast judgement on neighbouring countries.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide_recognition a total of 34 countries have recognised the Armenian genocide as genocide. That's not a lot. Even the UK and half of Scandinavia haven't. That Ukraine hasn't means nothing, it doesn't mean they don't consider it genocide, and it certainly doesn't mean they're okay with genocide. You're being overly anal about this issue.

Thank you for standing against lies and russian propaganda which doesn’t care about facts nor truth.

Their insulting comment is not based on anything real just as their arguments.

It serves as a form of mockery or dismissiveness towards you. It was used also to belittle and undermine the seriousness of the discussion. Typical for russian propaganda.

>Once you understand someone is delusional, there is no point.

it’s not a delusion. it’s typical russian propaganda tactics. explained here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36270224

Delusion:

  A false belief or judgment about external reality, held despite 
  incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, occurring especially
  in mental conditions.

I don't doubt the person actually thinks what they say they think. I don't think the experience of spreading propaganda involves self awareness that one is spreading propaganda. I think the nature of propaganda is that it is self propagating without a structure that consciously propagates it.

Delusion in the form of denial is a natural response to grief. "This entity that I am apart of is doing something heinously evil" would naturally cause grief. I experienced grief in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan because I believed my country was doing something evil.

Denial is the first stage of grief, and I think we are seeing denial in the form of delusion, delusion supported by propaganda.

And some were reunited even the wiki article you linked to says so.

> Why is he using it frivolously? He says Bush didn't do any of those things.

Exactly. He doesn’t. But it doesn’t matter for russian propaganda which is known for intentional twisting facts and expressions and making their opponent to explain obvious lies. Russian propaganda uses such twisting as en excuse to promote their narrative even if unrelated.

The initial question about Bush was invented in order to shift the discussion from undesired topic and deliver narrative in which actions of Bush and putin would look similar which is intentional lie to cover genocide actions performed by russia in Ukraine.

I think it is less to shift discussion and more as a justification in order to avoid responsibility. If we are all evil genocidal imperialists, then it is just a matter of who is the most effective evil genocidal imperialist, not a discussion about genocide or imperialism and how to stop it.

I think it is about avoiding personal responsibility more than it is about a desire to spread propaganda. Alternatively, it might be about showing that ones side is powerful and willing to fight.

If American elections are a sham, then it justifies Russia's sham elections.

If Americans don't get a say in how they are ruled, then Russian citizens don't have to be upset or take responsibility for their own lack of say in how they are ruled.

If America invades Iraq, that justifies China's pending invasion of Taiwan or Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

I kind of knew what that person was doing, and engaged with it in good faith anyway, which I regretted.

The sad part is that when you run into someone like this person, the battlefield is the only way to resolve the dispute.

The battlefield is going to be the arbiter of whether Taiwan is part of china or not too.

These people live in a fundamentally "us vs them" world and frame every problem in terms of a "them." The question is how do we got from "us vs them" to "us vs the problem" or said a different way: justice for all.

>I think it is less to shift discussion and more as a justification in order to avoid responsibility.

I agree. This way is more precise or I can reformulate what I’ve said this way: shift discussion toward justification to avoid responsibility.

> I kind of knew what that person was doing, and engaged with it in good faith anyway, which I regretted.

well, I know the feeling. Actually it’s the goal of propagandists to create such regret and more preferably a desperation with lack of wish to fight for reason to prevail. They try to exhaust opponent by intentionally saying some bs and forcing opponent to explain obvious things while push their lies and mostly ignoring the answers.

On the other hand I should say that I enjoyed reading your argument and the very fact that propaganda was met with a proper response done in good faith. I think this keeps hope and light to those who read it. At least it has this effect for me and I am thankful to you for your efforts.

>The sad part is that when you run into someone like this person, the battlefield is the only way to resolve the dispute.

Unfortunately.

It is still a question what to do with intentional propagandists. Giving them answers that are blocking their ability to spread another lie is degrading the discussion. Giving them proper answers feeds them with grounds to push their narrative more.

Perhaps in a discussions with such people we should pronounce that we kind of know what they are doing and address the core of their motivations instead of the topic itself which they aren’t discussing properly anyway. I am not sure it will work and still looking for a better solution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com