Genocide in Afghanistan?

Are racial quotas on college entrance genocide?
might as well be based on the standards being advocated here. though i obviously still object to those "standards".

"afghanistan...is tired...of women..." (in bernie sanders voice)

but actually no. words have meaning, and there are words that accurately describe oppression/removal of freedom there. genocide isn't one of those words, just like how pudding isn't one of those words.
 
"words have meaning", just like "critical race theory", until conservatives decide it means something completely different.

And to be fair, it's not like it's only conservatives who do this. Everyone does it. Words have meaning, but language is generally always changing in some fashion or another. The problem (and sometimes the key point of discussion) is to find out what that meaning is, and if it's shared between people who come at a specific topic from different angles.

Hence why we're discussing "genocide", instead of taking an arbitrary comparison to "pudding" as some kind of factual statement on how the English language should be used.
 
I am mystified by this attitude toward race as a criterion given that we have the following from the guy who coined the term:


Like, race is literally in the name.

I think the obsession with racial purity and the convoluted and inconsistent reasoning behind it are rather atypical for genocides. The purest form of genocide would be "These people look different, speak a different language and have strange customs, they don't deserve to live" instead of "They are a different race, but actually we cannot tell the difference, so we kill people based on the religion of their parents". It makes the debate about what is a genocide more difficult if everyone just has the Holocaust in mind.

i think uppi's qualm is that if the platonic ideal genocide is racial, it kind of infers that genociding on non-racial grounds is not "as genocidal". it could infer that on the scale of bad to worst, racial genocide always outranks other kinds.

if so, i can see the point. that said i think the holocaust is the platonic ideal of it for its reasons of method, and it also ofc genocided groups on nonracial grounds (political alignment and sexuality)

If you mean methods instead of victim selection, then I agree.

But I would not call the persecution because of political alignment genocide, because it did not target a specific people but rather specific ideas.
 
I do think that a pseudo-pretend nod at 'visible identification' is part of the concept. The machete is being used because the person swinging it can 'easily tell' that the person on the other end is part of the identified group. Of course, Dunning Kruger kicks in, but this is the price of asking young men to be violent.
 
Targeting ideas is always the cover. Like treason, or capitalist efficiency, or that they think they aren't mine to speak for, or that they're allowed to leave, or that they're hungry... like I can't actually tell that there is a real difference there across issues. I don't think there is.
 
.
"words have meaning", just like "critical race theory", until conservatives decide it means something completely different.

And to be fair, it's not like it's only conservatives who do this. Everyone does it. Words have meaning, but language is generally always changing in some fashion or another. The problem (and sometimes the key point of discussion) is to find out what that meaning is, and if it's shared between people who come at a specific topic from different angles.

CRT is like the PATRIOT Act or Common Core. The political definition expanded to include the OG's cousins - the former to include the entire fascist surveillance state, the latter to include any dumb educational theory.
 
.


CRT is like the PATRIOT Act or Common Core. The political definition expanded to include the OG's cousins - the former to include the entire fascist surveillance state, the latter to include any dumb educational theory.
"the definition expanded" is exactly what I was saying, in response to TMIT relying on "words have meaning". Both are true, in the relevant context(s). But you can't rely on "words have meaning" if you're also happy to accept that "definitions expand".
 
for the record, i understand and tried to cover this. english is very horrifying here.

furthermore, may not even be platonic anything (specifically because i don't believe in platonic ontology, so i'm by default using a grapefruit as a ruler), but whatever it is, common experience of the holocaust sees it as the essence of genocide, in its most cruel, pure form. use whatever ontology or epistemology you want for this, phenomenon, concept, universal, whatever. of genocide, westerners consider the holocaust the utmost. and i don't think this experience of the holocaust as genocide in its totality is completely unfair.

Nitpick, but nothing which is actually manifested (existent in the physical world) can be a platonic ideal. The latter is always outside of any given examples (and with good reason; eg there's a famous argument by Aristotle, often referred to as "the third man", in brief that if the type/form of something is identified as existing in the same realm as a manifestation of that thing, inevitably there will be a third example which would generalize both and thus become, compared to them, the form).
Moreover, the particulars of any thing by definition can not be related to the type/archetype ("ideal") of that thing, eg in the type of relation between a master and a servant, any existent particulars (race of the master or servant, body type, age etc) are unrelated to the actual type.
An archetype of genocide wouldn't be of some specific group of people; if it refers to complete annihilation, it would have a specific upper bound. If it refers to degrees of crucial oppression, I suppose relative lack of amenities would be counted. In either case, the ideal is a notion, not in tautology with any manifested member of that type.
 
Nitpick, but nothing which is actually manifested (existent in the physical world) can be a platonic ideal. The latter is always outside of any given examples (and with good reason; eg there's a famous argument by Aristotle, often referred to as "the third man", in brief that if the type/form of something is identified as existing in the same realm as a manifestation of that thing, inevitably there will be a third example which would generalize both and thus become, compared to them, the form).
Moreover, the particulars of any thing by definition can not be related to the type/archetype ("ideal") of that thing, eg in the type of relation between a master and a servant, any existent particulars (race of the master or servant, body type, age etc) are unrelated to the actual type.
An archetype of genocide wouldn't be of some specific group of people; if it refers to complete annihilation, it would have a specific upper bound. If it refers to degrees of crucial oppression, I suppose relative lack of amenities would be counted. In either case, the ideal is a notion, not in tautology with any manifested member of that type.
i knew you'd drop in because of what i wrote, but i didn't expect this. nice post mate <3
 
UN expert describes ‘staggering repression’ of women and girls in Afghanistan

A UN expert has described the “staggering repression” of women and girls in Afghanistan, as the UN mission in the country accused Taliban authorities of harassing its female Afghan employees.​
In a statement on Monday, the UN mission described “an emerging pattern of harassment of Afghan UN female staff by the de facto authorities. Three Afghan women working for the UN were recently detained briefly and questioned by Taliban gunmen,” it said.​
The incident came as Richard Bennett, the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, called for radical changes. “The severe rollback of the rights of women and girls, reprisals targeting opponents and critics, and a clampdown on freedom of expression by the Taliban amount to a descent towards authoritarianism,” he told a Human Rights Council meeting.​
Afghanistan ambassador Nasir Ahmad Andisha, who represents the toppled government, went further, describing a “gender apartheid” in the country.
Several Afghan women addressed the same meeting, including rights activist Mahbouba Seraj, who urged the 47-member council to set up a mechanism to investigate abuses.​
“God only knows what kind of atrocities are not being reported,” she told the room full of UN diplomats in Geneva. “And I want that to be reported because this is not right. World: this is not right. Please, please, you’ve got to do something about it.”​
Assistant secretary general for human rights, Ilze Brands Kehris, said that approximately 850,000 girls had so far dropped out of school, placing them at risk of child marriage and sexual economic exploitation.​
On Saturday, in eastern Afghanistan’s Paktia province, Taliban authorities shut down five girls’ schools above the sixth grade that had briefly opened after a recommendation by tribal elders and school principals.​
Earlier this month, four girls’ schools in Gardez, the provincial capital, and one in the Samkani district began operating without formal permission from the Taliban education ministry. On Saturday, all five schools were once again closed by authorities.​
 
Top Bottom