Comment by aisenik | Hacker News Reader

Comment by aisenik | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It is essential to understand the concepts involved:

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

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

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

And then you can take your pick of media outlets. The Office Of Remigration is happening, they aren't hiding it. For example:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/29/politics/rubio-lays-out-detai...

This is just one clear-cut example of the administration prosecuting genocide. There are others, there's plenty of boogeymen.

Assuming you disagree that this is proof of genocide-in-progress, please explain to me how an official policy of ethnic cleansing is not prosecuting genocide. It will be illustrative.

In parting, a digestif, courtesy of the prominent far-right ideologue who's made public claims of a lurid sexual relationship with Trump:

https://xcancel.com/LauraLoomer/status/1939831588902109629#m

On these wiki definitions:

Ethnic cleansing: "with some researchers including and others excluding coercive assimilation or mass killings as a means of depopulating an area of a particular group"

"Mass killings" is a big detail which is hard to overlook. If we can't agree where ethnic cleansing includes mass killing it's hard too agree if ethnic cleansing is taking place.

Personally, ethnic cleansing to me sounds like Rwanda or Yugoslavia, which is not happening in the US yet.

It's a wikipedia definition, and should be weighted as such. There exists a continuous spectrum of arguments about the definition of genocide, with Holocaust-denial existing at one extreme and a hard line against things like forced displacement, systemic/legal erasure, or forced deprivation of a population, i.e. systematic actions that materially contribute to the elimination of a group, at the other. Somewhere in between the two are all the arguments in support of mass atrocities throughout history.

I'm comfortable once we can agree that it's merely a question of degree and that we're indeed very solidly on the genocide spectrum.

I would like to believe Americans are capable of identifying genocide before we've gone full-Rwanda. I would like to hold my fellow Americans in higher esteem than that. I would like a pony.

I'm guessing that they want to keep 'genocide' for the worst cases ? While others want a more general term including it ?

I think some also tried to push for the term 'ethnocide' for when mass killings were not involved ?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com