I’m not defending them, but arguably neither of the two in Star Wars being referenced here should be called that. Maybe the jedi one is, if we consider them a religious group and not a political one (debatable at the point of the attack), because it was a widespread extermination of them. The sand people one was just a mass murder though. There wasn’t a systemic extermination of the people, only a large retribution killing of a single group.
Still though, they’re close enough that we all know what it’s talking about. It’s fine.
I know I am. So sick of the overuse and devaluation of the word here.
Which genocide shouldn’t be called a genocide? Come on, say it.
I’m not defending them, but arguably neither of the two in Star Wars being referenced here should be called that. Maybe the jedi one is, if we consider them a religious group and not a political one (debatable at the point of the attack), because it was a widespread extermination of them. The sand people one was just a mass murder though. There wasn’t a systemic extermination of the people, only a large retribution killing of a single group.
Still though, they’re close enough that we all know what it’s talking about. It’s fine.
He means Gaza, his comment isnt about star wars.
Seems like a cowardly way of saying you want to ignore all the increasing number of genocides happening in the world.
That’s one interpretation.
Well, considering that you’re refusing to provide any other interpretation, it’s the most probable one.
Come on now, what do people here call a genocide that you think shouldn’t be called a genocide?
Can you give us an example of things you don’t like being referred to as “genocide”?
But c*nsored usage is still usage. Everybody can see the word.
B-based
B*sed.