Genocide - What would make it okay and/or good?

Penis Drager

Penis Drager

Schrödinger's retard
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Aug 8, 2020
Of course, definitions come first. Let's default to the UN's definition unless otherwise noted:
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:
  1. Killing members of the group;
  2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Click to expand...
This does leave some ambiguity as to what would constitute a "true" genocide. And you're obviously free to discuss all of that nuance here. But this is the definition the international community has broadly agreed upon.
Even if you agree that all of these actions are bad, terrible even, in the real world with the real "groups" that exist. What hypothetical scenario would make it excusable (ie. not a "good" thing to do but understandable given the circumstances) or justified (ie. the right thing to do)? What traits would these groups need to exhibit and how prevalent must they be? Would you draw the line at any definition, 1-5, while accepting other definitions of genocide as potentially okay?

Please also note that white girls choosing not to have sex with you is not genocide.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Toolbox and Shidoen
Please also note that white girls choosing not to have sex with you is not genocide.
Click to expand...
I am surprised you picked this group to exclude and not Niggers or a Jews.

With that said, being a Nigger or a Jew.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Shidoen
The year is 1939.
The country is Germany.


I kid I kid just let God smite them again, they seem to enjoy it.
 
Only 4 and 5 can ever be okay or good. 4 could be used for cleaning up inner cities, reducing crime, and improving quality of life Margaret Sanger-style which most people implicitly know to be a good thing. However, some argue that this isn't actually genocide since it's targetting unfit people of all races and only hits minorities harder because they have more unfit people for reasons that are arguably not necessary/not entirely racial. 5 could be used for dealing with races with corrupt culture like gypsies (or the various Indian castes they spawned from), however, this might be a step too far and other laws and education tactics could be used to fix these races. I've heard in some communist countries gypsies (for instance) aren't as bad since the government put them up in commieblocks and banned a lot of their bullshit, even though they still are, well, gypsies.

If theoretically you had to deal with a powerful nation of this evil group of people, then you still wouldn't use 1-3, you'd conquer them in a war and then use 4-5 to re-educate them.
 
Save the Loli said:
If theoretically you had to deal with a powerful nation of this evil group of people, then you still wouldn't use 1-3, you'd conquer them in a war and then use 4-5 to re-educate them.
Click to expand...
Let's say this group weren't necessarily "powerful" (they could be but it's irrelevant) but intrinsically driven towards certain antisocial behaviors. Let's say, even among the "re-educated" population, the vast majority just can't help themselves when given the opportunity to to commit heinous acts for short term gain. They're literal fucking orcs.
Would 1-3 be acceptable at that point or would you just double down on 4-5 accepting that bad shit's still gonna happen in case 5 but with adequate usage of case 4 it would go away eventually?

I'm not going to argue one way or the other. I just want to know your opinions on this unrealistic extreme.
 
It all depends on what your understanding of "good" is. If what is good means only what is good for your own people, then genocide can be justified for very nearly anything that benefits your group. If what's good is what's good for everyone, then there's never any justification for genocide. I'd argue that even in the scenario where your only concern is the wellbeing of your own group it's still a bad idea to commit genocide. I can't imagine that doing such a thing would be all that great for your people in the long run. At the very least you're going to severely psychologically damage the people who actually carry out the act. Not to mention that performing genocide against any group is going to make you a target for other groups and could serve as a justification for committing genocide against you.

I think a good example of genocide done right, if you could say such a thing exists, is the genocide of Amerindians. Although I think that it's also an example of a largely unintentional genocide. I highly doubt that the majority of American men who went to war with the savages did so with the intent of exterminating them from the continent. If you look at American raids against them you'll find that they're primarily reactionary. It might be silly, but here are my criteria for a good genocide:

  • A well argued justification.
  • A large timeframe.
  • A target that can fight back, or a method of totally dehumanizing the target.
  • Near total eradication of the target.
Again, this is working under presupposition that "good" is defined as being beneficial to your own nation/race/ethnic group.
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: The Foxtrot and The Great Chandler
Passing Through Town said:
It all depends on what your understanding of "good" is.
Click to expand...
I mean... That's kinda what I'm asking here.
What traits would the target population have to possess (and how prevalent must these traits be within that population) to be worthy of genocide in your opinion?
You do bring up some good points, but you're skirting around the point.
 
Genocide should only be killing the group or chemically preventing births. Everything else is bullshit to add specific groups into the list for political point (*cough* Palestinians *cough*).
And whether that's justified is only if the culture/race itself is so toxic that humanity is better off without it in the long run. Which will heavily depend on how much people think a group is salvageable.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Homophobic white dog
Penis Drager said:
Let's say this group weren't necessarily "powerful" (they could be but it's irrelevant) but intrinsically driven towards certain antisocial behaviors. Let's say, even among the "re-educated" population, the vast majority just can't help themselves when given the opportunity to to commit heinous acts for short term gain. They're literal fucking orcs.
Would 1-3 be acceptable at that point or would you just double down on 4-5 accepting that bad shit's still gonna happen in case 5 but with adequate usage of case 4 it would go away eventually?

I'm not going to argue one way or the other. I just want to know your opinions on this unrealistic extreme.
Click to expand...
In that case we'd probably be doing number 2 through mass incarceration in addition to ample use of 4 and 5. Like forget 13 do 50, the disproportionate ratio would be even higher. But overall I'd still be agnostic about this question. Can we really prove that any group is in its entirety that evil? I'm skeptical if that's a question humans can answer.

Of course, I don't believe any group of people like that exists or ever could exist without some incredible technology (complete mastery over genetics and heritability) that would let a future Morgoth or Yakub-type figure create these "orcs." However, that same technology would also let us "cure" these people of their evil, but that in of itself might presumably count as genocide. Or does it? Is mass-brainwashing a race to become more moral really that much worse than, say, the idea of state standards for education that are applied to even homeschooling?
Passing Through Town said:
I think a good example of genocide done right, if you could say such a thing exists, is the genocide of Amerindians. Although I think that it's also an example of a largely unintentional genocide. I highly doubt that the majority of American men who went to war with the savages did so with the intent of exterminating them from the continent. If you look at American raids against them you'll find that they're primarily reactionary. It might be silly, but here are my criteria for a good genocide:
Click to expand...
They did in (parts of) California, because the Americans behind it were terrified that if the Indians there rose up (and there were a lot of them, even after disease) they'd have to spend years and years fighting Indian wars instead of getting rich off gold/gold miners, so they did all sorts of shit like send them poisoned food and launch sneak attacks against them.
 
Penis Drager said:
I mean... That's kinda what I'm asking here.
What traits would the target population have to possess (and how prevalent must these traits be within that population) to be worthy of genocide in your opinion?
You do bring up some good points, but you're skirting around the point.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's about the traits of the target population at all. I guess what I was trying to get at was essentially that I would only consider genocide as a means to an end, which would typically be either the procurement of resources or a response to hostility of one kind or another. In that sense I suppose the only undesirable trait for the outgroup is hostility against the ingroup, like in the case of the Amerindians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back