Genocide denial is still genocide denial even if your argument uses victims of one genocide to deny that genocide happened to other groups of people.

Try telling that to the face of someone whose whole family died in the death marches.

My argument is genocide is bad, ethnic cleansing is bad, and that there is no meaningful difference between the two.

Your argument is genocide is bad, ethnic cleansing is frowned but somehow less bad, and that there is a meaning distinction between ethnic cleansing and genocide that your argument does not articulate.

Luis Moreno Ocampo, the inaugural prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, has classified the ethnic cleansing of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians as a second Armenian genocide, and opined that the inaction of the international community encouraged Azerbaijan to act with impunity.[34][35]

The number of deaths has nothing to do with it. The intent is the same, the only difference between the two genocides is that they were less successful at killing people in the second one. The only people that are helped by defending a distinction between ethnic cleansing and genocide, that does not exist, are the people who want to commit genocide.

I think the vast majority of Democrats in House and Senate will bend the knee or just stay silent before facing persecution.

Since Trump’s inauguration, the Democrats have been ineffective so far, but they haven’t been silent. We’ll find out soon.

And everybody voting the furthest left viable is a flimsy strategy for fighting fascism.

It was the only useful, viable strategy we had.

Many people already do that all the time, but you can’t make sure that everybody does.

We can count on people to act in their own self-interest. People can organize online to spread true information. The issue was that people fell for propaganda that convinced them to act against their own interests without them realizing it.

Also, with this there never was a chance to move the party any further left. Every election there was this myth that you have to vote moderate to change the party, but it never happened. Why should it? Moderates can say that the voters have shown they want moderate positions when they win. And when they lose for some reason they go, “Well, if you need them the most the progressives will stab you in the back. Let’s cut them out”. This is what I mean there are no consequences for Democrats, at least for the leadership that’s moderate and neoliberal. They will never move.

My argument is that voting for neoliberal Democrats will only incrementally shift the party to the left. In order to make the Democrats meaningfully change from a leaning right of center organization to at least a leaning left of center organization they must be co-opted by a progressive or socialist candidate with a populist narrative. This populist narrative would ideally be a progressive and socialist agenda. Like Bernie tried to do twice. In order for someone like Bernie to do this we needed more time before a fascist takeover.

We know this strategy can work because Trump did it to the Republican party. He used a populist narrative of white christian nationalism. However, we are now out of time and relying on the idea that fascist incompetence will give us another chance.

There is no fulcrum on the political spectrum that can force Democrats to change. And if what your argument wants is a reason for Democrats to change that is not consequences but incentives. To be clear, in a democracy the only consequence for losing elections is to lose out on political power. There is no mechanism besides voting to make Democrats agree with one group of constituents. Democrats look at who voted and then chase those votes.

As long as money is in politics the incentives will always be for the Democrats to incrementally change at best. At a pace that is far to slow to fix wealth inequality or climate change. Political power has to be seized when it is up for grabs during primaries in order to see more systemic change. But in order to do that there needed to be future elections which is no longer guaranteed.

Your argument’s defense of a nonexistent boundary between genocide and ethnic cleansing boils down to genocide denial. There is no agreed upon definition of ethnic cleansing. There is no way to peacefully forcefully relocate a group of people. An attempt to forcefully relocate a group of people is motivated by the desire to destroy that group in whole or in part.

The quote from the wiki article points out everything I have now written down in this comment. It’s written as a series of rhetorical questions with clear answers. Your argument’s effort to misrepresent the wiki page’s descriptive analysis of ethnic cleansing as an official definition is an attempt to police a none existent boundary. You argument left out the last part of that section.

Multiple genocide scholars have criticized distinguishing between ethnic cleansing and genocide, with Martin Shaw arguing that forced deportation necessarily results in the destruction of a group and this must be foreseen by the perpetrators.

A call for ethnic cleansing is a call for genocide. There is no way to engage in peaceful forceful deportation or population transfer. There is no meaningful difference between getting rid of a group by forcefully removing them and destroying them.

The Armenian genocide involved death marches, into the desert without food or water. What’s the meaningful difference between sending people to die in the desert and destroying them? There isn’t one.

https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/armenian-genocide

Oh, lol. XD
🫶🇨🇦

I found this quote useful so I’m going to put it here as well as it seems incredibly relevant.

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

“How could ‘forced deportation’ ever be achieved without extreme coercion, indeed violence? How, indeed, could deportation not be forced? How could people not resist? How could it not involve the destruction of a community, of the way of life that a group has enjoyed over a period of time? How could those who deported a group not intend this destruction? In what significant way is the forcible removal of a population from their homeland different from the destruction’ of a group? If the boundary between ‘cleansing’ and genocide is unreal, why police it?”

You’ve got to put a /s on that. People in this comment section unironically believe that.

The last election is where democracy died.

There are other countries with their own elections facing the threat of a fascist takeover. Canada has one on October 20, 2025 that could be called earlier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Canadian_federal_election

I don’t think that legitimate elections are happening in 4 years. They’re gutting everything and installing their flunkies just as they said they would in p2025.

I think that it is likely we will not get fair and free elections if any elections at all in 2026 and 2028. It’s still possible that we do. We thankfully cannot rule out fascist incompetence in general, but we can’t count on it either for specific things. Regardless if we do have elections or not, having a movement that can win elections in theory is still useful for resisting and defeating fascism.

It’s important that we make it clear that there is no way to do an ethnic cleansing without genocide. I’ve updated my comment.

so, are we only allowed to say ‘genocide’ when criticizing democrats?

Biden is complicit in genocide.

but when republicans do it “it’s not a genocide, it’s ethnic cleansing”.

Trump did call for ethnic cleansing. It’s good people are calling him out on this, because that is what he did. The issue is that we should all be calling him out on genocide as well. There is no such thing as a peaceful ethnic cleansing. So when Trump called for ethnic cleansing it was also a call for genocide. I found this relevant quote on wiki:

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

“How could ‘forced deportation’ ever be achieved without extreme coercion, indeed violence? How, indeed, could deportation not be forced? How could people not resist? How could it not involve the destruction of a community, of the way of life that a group has enjoyed over a period of time? How could those who deported a group not intend this destruction? In what significant way is the forcible removal of a population from their homeland different from the destruction’ of a group? If the boundary between ‘cleansing’ and genocide is unreal, why police it?”

Peaceful ethnic cleansing is an oxymoron. Peace is mutually exclusive from forceful relocation.

I will update my above comment to reflect this.

They just don’t seem to get any consequences for it.

The consequences are that Democrat politicians live in a fascist dictatorship, are persecuted politically, and remembered for their incompetence. Many of them are rich enough that they will probably not feel the impacts anytime soon, it really depends how serious Trump is on the retribution.

What’s important is to care more about people than punishing the Democrats. If we are lucky enough to have future elections, we need to see the Democratic Party as a tool. edit: typo

They should have voted neoliberal.

There are more than one lesson to learn from an election. People need to learn to vote for the furthest left viable political party that they can. Democrats need to learn to adopt a populists narrative that pushes progressive and socialist ideas. Democrats are unlikely to do this until they are co-opted by progressives and socialists the way Republicans were co-opted by Trump. But delaying fascism as long as possible gives progressives and socialists more time to take control of the Democratic Party.

This is not a particularly helpful message for the time being since the election is past and won’t be for a while at best.

Other countries will have elections to determine if they have a fascist takeover in the next four years and beyond. Canada’s next election is October 20, 2025 but could be called sooner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Canadian_federal_election

This is more a wish on what could have been and leaves little room for current discourse when this is a dead end topic.

American accelerationists still need to learn their lessons. There was a hate crime in my home town recently against a member of the LGBTQ+ community. People in the local LGBTQ+ community went to a meeting to express their concerns directly to the police force responsible for conducting the investigation. This was an exercise in demonstrating power. The local news is talking about it and people know we will not accept intolerance.

So the election has passed in America, but many of us may find out there are opportunities to make a difference and be vocal. A person needs to understand that doing nothing isn’t useful to participate in that kind of a moment.

Accelerationism is alive and well as is demonstrated by people in this comment section. So even though we can’t change the 2024 election results, we are going to keep talking about them. If we do not, the 2026 and 2028 elections, which are not guaranteed to happen now, will look very similar. Even if there are no more elections in America there are still people who need help. They will not get that help unless people believe they need to be helping.

You’re reaching out to people too stupid to understand basic logic.

Thankfully this problem has nothing to do with general intelligence which we don’t understand anyway. This is a problem with information and knowledge. There is a lot of false information. And people are unaware of true information. Thanks to the internet we have the opportunity to educate people we have never met to correct this.

These are people who fell for accelerationism. It’s an idea that anyone, of any political position, can fall for. It’s so tempting to think that things can get better by getting worse. Because all accelerationism asks of us is to do nothing. People will look at history and see the bad things that happened to people who tried to change things for the better, assassinations, murders, assaults, arrests and incorrectly conclude it had to get worse in order to get better. The truth is people kept working to make things better despite these set backs. People learned from their mistakes and then applied what they learned.

We need to keep reaching out to people because accelerationism is both useless and false. If we let things get worse they will continue to get worse indefinitely. People who believe in accelerationism will keep believing in accelerationism no matter how bad it gets. Unless we explain to them why accelerationism is useless and false.

Which is why an anti-democratic felon rapist is our leader and is currently deconstructing our federal government.

This has been caused primarily by the right-wing information sphere and the general capture of mainstream media by billionaires. Fox News has been brainwashing people for decades. And Q-Anon was able to get the boomers who didn’t know better to trust what they read on Facebook.

I’ve had multiple family members brainwashed by Fox News and other right-wing media. They are all competent women who held down jobs and raised families. One of them wrote code and another built furniture and metal art. Considering they are all white they would get high scores on IQ tests. It doesn’t matter how smart or competent a person is. If all the information a person consumes is fascist propaganda it’s logical to expect that person to vote for and support fascist candidates.

This article is about an American president declaring his intentions to ethnically cleanse and thus genocide the Gaza Strip. This article is very clearly about American politics.

edit: I wanted to make it clear that ethnic cleansing is inseparable from genocide.

The vice president doesn’t have the power to overrule the president in any capacity.

As voters we had the opportunity to prevent fascism for four more years by voting for neoliberals. This would have given progressives and socialists another opportunity to co-opt the Democrat party. The failure of the Democrats to provide a compelling alternative does not mean we should be complicit in our own destruction and allow fascists to murder us.

The vice president isn’t in charge of sending weapons to anyone. Harris was never given any such order to follow. Here is an overview of the role of the vice president:

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/what-is-the-constitutional-role-of-the-vice-president

Trump says Palestinians have ‘no alternative’ but to leave Gaza

Trump is the president of the United States and he has declared his intentions to ethnically cleanse and thus genocide the Gaza Strip. Americans who refused to vote for Kamala Harris are part of how we got here. American accelerationism harmed Palestinians.

edit: Ethnic cleansing and genocide are inseparable. I’ve updated my comment to reflect this as Trump’s idea of a peaceful ethnic cleansing is completely and totally false.

The vice president doesn’t have the power to overrule the president. Biden is complicit in genocide. Kamala and many in his adminstration are not.