ryann meer

You don’t have to be ashamed of her.

She was young, and ignorant, and — I’m just guessing here — abused. She didn’t deserve that. She didn’t deserve to be lonely. She deserved the chance to become someone better. She deserved the kind of love that would make her flourish.

And she still does.

This month people have been tearing Flock cameras off their poles. Perched above public streets, they are birdlike things, weatherproof, and they photograph every passing car and file it in a searchable national database. Somebody cut two of them in half at Washington Avenue and Westcott in Houston, spray-painted the wreckage, and left an American flag on one of them. Police were notified on the morning of the Fourth of July. Somebody severed a camera in Rutherfordton, North Carolina. The police department posted the photograph itself and collected more than twenty thousand comments. “Not all heroes wear capes.” “Give them a medal.” Here is what the cameras do when nobody cuts them down. Cops use them to hunt immigrants and to follow ICE targets across state lines and to find women who ended pregnancies in states where that is a crime and to watch exes and to watch women they want, without a warrant and without a judge. A cop types a reason in a box and the box does not check. A man in Burleson, Texas, told deputies his girlfriend had taken abortion pills. He showed them the photographs, the FedEx envelope, the instructions. Deputies opened a death investigation into a non-viable fetus, and the district attorney told them the state could not charge her, and they searched anyway: 83,345 cameras across 6,809 networks, a month of everywhere she had been. The reason they typed was had an abortion, search for female. The search reached Illinois and Washington, where what she did was legal. They found her in Dallas. She came into the sheriff’s office a week later, and they thought she had come to explain the fetus, and she had come to report that the man who called them had put a gun to her head. A sheriff in Jerome County, Idaho ran his wife’s plate more than seven hundred times in three months. He typed the same reason every time. Test. The attorney general found nothing to charge him with. He retired in April. The Institute for Justice counts at least twenty-two officers who used the system to track people they were romantically interested in, and calls that almost certainly an undercount. And the cameras keep falling.

I never really realised how much difference it makes until I went to England and realised that here the change of seasons is an obvious, visible, physical change in the world. Like, everything REALLY IS orange and foggy in autumn! In spring there are flowers EVERYWHERE, so much more than any other season, and the trees really do have all blossom and no leaves. Even if it doesn't snow, in winter there's frost all the time and the trees are bare and the sky is visibly greyer all the time. You don't need to be told "this date is the first day of spring", you can SEE IT (although this is getting way messier and less precise due to climate change).

By contrast, most places in Australia the seasons we're taught feel like arbitrary categories - and is it any surprise considering they're colonial constructs? Orange-leaved autumn and blossom-covered spring is a cartoon stereotype with no relevance on a continent where ALL NATIVE TREES ARE EVERGREEN!! Snowy winters are a joke in the desert, and even sunny summers don't ring particularly true considering that much of the country is in the tropics, where summer means monsoons - not that I've ever seen the concept that WE HAVE A MONSOON SEASON taught at an Australian school.

the 4 season model as you and i know it is a european invention, though 4 season models aren't unique to europe! most notably china has the same type of season subdivision.

Man, y'all, I didn't even bring up whether or not it "counts" as genocide. I didn't refuse to call it a genocide or agree with calling it a genocide. It is truly incredible that expressing almost zero opinion on this has caused so many people to decide confidently what it means my opinion is.

This is not all on you, anon; I notice that you're not directly critiquing me but saying what seems to be your personal opinion. Apparently I need to settle this too, though, so:

My first opinion: it is bonkers that I need to express an opinion in order to stop everyone from deciding my opinion for me.

My second opinion: What Israel is doing is unequivocally wildly disproportionately harmful and the figures I have seen about bombings are shocking and appalling and horrific. There is zero doubt in my mind that Israel is violating international law (if international law can even be called "law" when it barely exists in the first place, but that's a rant for another day). There is zero doubt in my mind that Israel is ensuring there will be people who feel justified in violent retaliation for decades based on these events. I believe there's no justification for bombing civilians.

My third opinion: Looking up "genocide" in Black's Law Dictionary, I think Israel's actions actually fall closer to the related definition of "ethnic cleansing" than "genocide" itself. Ask a lawyer, get a pedantic answer.

My fourth opinion: The United States hasn't just actively funded genocide and ethnic cleansing, it's done it, extraordinarily often. In fact, when your brother says "everyone's done it" he's kind of more right than he realizes. One of the theories of democratic development that's less discussed, for obvious reasons, is that some form of genocide is actually somehow beneficial for, or some kind of pre-condition to, a nation-state developing democratic norms or ideals. This is a theory I learned about in school, particularly from the book The Dark Side of Democracy. Isn't that some fucked-up shit?

My fifth opinion: I appreciate that you are actually mentioning that America is not only funding but doing genocides. This is true, and it's something I happen to know a lot more about and therefore have more opinions about than Israel and Palestine. I'm happy to expound at length about federal court tyranny over Indian reservations. Missing and murdered indigenous women. Actual current right now American concentration camps. Places where my opinion might be actually valuable and educational!

The frustrating part about these stupid language-purity tests is that they are about excluding people who literally agree with you. Does what I said above make me the enemy? Y'all make me want to refuse to answer just because the question is so far beside the point and it pisses me off.

Genocide has a precise legal definition. In the law, there are two primary sources for the crime of genocide: the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and Article 6 of the Rome Statute. In both, the requisite elements are:

(1) actus reus—any of the following acts: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

(2) dolus specialis—the specific intent to "destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group . . . ."

Ethnic cleansing, by contrast, is not a recognized crime. Its legal origins are in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia ("ICTY"). The ICTY defined ethnic cleansing as "rendering an area ethnically homogenous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area." See here at 33. Importantly, the ICTY's report noted that "[t]hose practices constitute crimes against humanity and can be assimilated to specific war crimes. Furthermore, such acts could also fall within the meaning of the Genocide Convention." Id. (emphasis added). The necessary distinction is that ethnic cleansing, at least under the ICTY's definition, "can be assimilated to specific war crimes", whereas the prohibition of genocide is a jus cogens norm.

Jus cogens norms "reflect and protect fundamental values of the international community, are hierarchically superior to other rules of international law and are universally applicable." See here at 105. This matters because it means that the prohibition of genocide is absolute and applies whether a state is at peace or in war. War crimes, on the other hand, can only occur during war. Is it incorrect to say that Israel is conducting ethnic cleansing in Gaza? No. The problem, though, is that when assessing culpability for war crimes, the calculus is different than genocide. The inquiry is not into whether the crime was done with the specific intent to destroy a group in whole or in part. To evaluate ethnic cleansing (which, notably, has no evaluative criteria because it is not an independently recognized crime) absent this element fails to account for the practices that result in ethnic cleansing. Is it really possible to "render[] an area ethnically homogenous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups" without genocidal intent? I am not sure. What I am sure of is that the International Court of Justice noted that ethnic cleansing may demonstrate genocidal intent in reference to the ICTY's findings. See here at para. 190.

Now, on the question of whether Israel is committing genocide. Regarding the actus reus, Israel has (a) engaged in killings of Palestinians and (b) inflicted serious bodily and mental harm on Palestinians. Israel's blockades of aid as well as its deliberate targeting of hospitals, educational facilities, and cultural heritage sites can be argued to have (c) subjected Palestinians to conditions calculated to bring about their destruction. Israel's attacks on birthing centers may also amount to (d) imposing measures to prevent Palestinian births. This element is generally not contested; it is the second element, dolus specialis, that some argue is not satisfied.

By Black's Law Dictionary, ethnic cleansing is:

The elimination of a particular people from an area or country because of their racial or national identity; specif., the officially sanctioned forcible and systematic diminution or elimination of targeted ethnic minorities from a geographic area, usu. by confiscating real and personal property, ordering or condoning mass murders and mass rapes, and expelling the survivors.

Your argument that this is not ethnic cleansing boils down to:

Ethnic cleansing isn't a bad enough crime and would be on shaky legal ground (literally couldn't give less of a shit)

Other people call it genocide (I'm sure I can find plenty of scholars who vigorously disagree)

You'd have to have genocidal intent if you were doing ethnic cleansing (arguable, especially from someone who doesn't have an education in mental state vs. intent)

And you used so, so many words to say this.

My point was that there are actions here that seem more intended to drive people out than kill all of them. Okay? Okay.

I'm not trying to be mean here, but this remains not my shit, I remain concerned about American atrocities that I can actually do something about, and I'm not sure why you spent so much fucking time on this. It's not like I said "oh, it's just ethnic cleansing! Totally understandable! Israel is forgiven!" Do you think I think ethnic cleansing is good? Like, why spend all these words trying to convince me of this? What is the goal here? Did you even touch on reading the rest of the post with the "language purity" bullshit?

“My point was that there are actions here that seem more intended to drive people out than kill all of them.” This argument is exactly why I made my post. Genocide is not “killing all of a group.” It is one of the five aforementioned acts—killing, inflicting serious bodily or mental harm, creating destructive conditions, preventing births, transferring children—done with the specific intent to destroy a group in whole or in part. In fact, genocide can theoretically occur without a single killing! Whether ethnic cleansing can occur without genocidal intent is debated by scholars, which helps further explain why it does not exist as a standalone crime. This is also why I am not engaging with your comments about “language purity”. Genocide is a specific crime with a precise definition, it is not “language purity” to critique its incorrect use. It was you who invoked your profession to give a “pedantic answer” in the first place! I’m also not sure why you’re opposed to leaning on the legal analysis of experts as, in your words, this “remains not [your] shit”.

Yeah I can tell you’re not a legal scholar. Because what you have done here is, in a place where I referenced a specific source of a specific definition, you have instead substituted your own set of definitions and therefore decided you have disproven my argument.

A person can’t use the words “ethnic cleansing” to cover up mass murders and mass rapes if those are specifically part of the definition that person has specifically used. Which it was. Historical reference for word meaning is only relevant if a definition has not been agreed upon in advance.

Still don’t care that it’s not a specific enough crime for you.

And I’m not “opposed to leaning on the analysis of experts;” I’m just aware that your appeal to authority is a fallacy.

I understand that you are talking like this is an academic paper because you want your point of view to seem like an inevitability instead of an opinion. It’s certainly not working on me because your actual argument just isn’t strong. It’s also nigh unreadable. Reconsider your tactics and your purpose.

I’m not interested in this anymore. This is boring. You are starting a fight not because I took the side of “the enemy” but because my language wasn’t good enough for you. This is the action of someone who has no way to do any moral good except by language policing. Someone who has no direction in their life. Does this rage make you feel less empty? Kind of short-lived, isn’t it? Addictive? Always makes you need to bully someone new to get the same feeling? Ever wonder if you’re actually doing any good at all?

Instead you came in full guns blazing telling me I needed to call it this word or I was actively perpetuating an evil, all while hiding your own intent in “see id” type official academic language, which is flat absurd in this context. You tried to bully me into submission as an enemy instead of having a conversation. How’d it work out for you?

Man, y'all, I didn't even bring up whether or not it "counts" as genocide. I didn't refuse to call it a genocide or agree with calling it a genocide. It is truly incredible that expressing almost zero opinion on this has caused so many people to decide confidently what it means my opinion is.

This is not all on you, anon; I notice that you're not directly critiquing me but saying what seems to be your personal opinion. Apparently I need to settle this too, though, so:

My first opinion: it is bonkers that I need to express an opinion in order to stop everyone from deciding my opinion for me.

My second opinion: What Israel is doing is unequivocally wildly disproportionately harmful and the figures I have seen about bombings are shocking and appalling and horrific. There is zero doubt in my mind that Israel is violating international law (if international law can even be called "law" when it barely exists in the first place, but that's a rant for another day). There is zero doubt in my mind that Israel is ensuring there will be people who feel justified in violent retaliation for decades based on these events. I believe there's no justification for bombing civilians.

My third opinion: Looking up "genocide" in Black's Law Dictionary, I think Israel's actions actually fall closer to the related definition of "ethnic cleansing" than "genocide" itself. Ask a lawyer, get a pedantic answer.

My fourth opinion: The United States hasn't just actively funded genocide and ethnic cleansing, it's done it, extraordinarily often. In fact, when your brother says "everyone's done it" he's kind of more right than he realizes. One of the theories of democratic development that's less discussed, for obvious reasons, is that some form of genocide is actually somehow beneficial for, or some kind of pre-condition to, a nation-state developing democratic norms or ideals. This is a theory I learned about in school, particularly from the book The Dark Side of Democracy. Isn't that some fucked-up shit?

My fifth opinion: I appreciate that you are actually mentioning that America is not only funding but doing genocides. This is true, and it's something I happen to know a lot more about and therefore have more opinions about than Israel and Palestine. I'm happy to expound at length about federal court tyranny over Indian reservations. Missing and murdered indigenous women. Actual current right now American concentration camps. Places where my opinion might be actually valuable and educational!

The frustrating part about these stupid language-purity tests is that they are about excluding people who literally agree with you. Does what I said above make me the enemy? Y'all make me want to refuse to answer just because the question is so far beside the point and it pisses me off.

Genocide has a precise legal definition. In the law, there are two primary sources for the crime of genocide: the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and Article 6 of the Rome Statute. In both, the requisite elements are:

(1) actus reus—any of the following acts: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

(2) dolus specialis—the specific intent to "destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group . . . ."

Ethnic cleansing, by contrast, is not a recognized crime. Its legal origins are in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia ("ICTY"). The ICTY defined ethnic cleansing as "rendering an area ethnically homogenous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area." See here at 33. Importantly, the ICTY's report noted that "[t]hose practices constitute crimes against humanity and can be assimilated to specific war crimes. Furthermore, such acts could also fall within the meaning of the Genocide Convention." Id. (emphasis added). The necessary distinction is that ethnic cleansing, at least under the ICTY's definition, "can be assimilated to specific war crimes", whereas the prohibition of genocide is a jus cogens norm.

Jus cogens norms "reflect and protect fundamental values of the international community, are hierarchically superior to other rules of international law and are universally applicable." See here at 105. This matters because it means that the prohibition of genocide is absolute and applies whether a state is at peace or in war. War crimes, on the other hand, can only occur during war. Is it incorrect to say that Israel is conducting ethnic cleansing in Gaza? No. The problem, though, is that when assessing culpability for war crimes, the calculus is different than genocide. The inquiry is not into whether the crime was done with the specific intent to destroy a group in whole or in part. To evaluate ethnic cleansing (which, notably, has no evaluative criteria because it is not an independently recognized crime) absent this element fails to account for the practices that result in ethnic cleansing. Is it really possible to "render[] an area ethnically homogenous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups" without genocidal intent? I am not sure. What I am sure of is that the International Court of Justice noted that ethnic cleansing may demonstrate genocidal intent in reference to the ICTY's findings. See here at para. 190.

Now, on the question of whether Israel is committing genocide. Regarding the actus reus, Israel has (a) engaged in killings of Palestinians and (b) inflicted serious bodily and mental harm on Palestinians. Israel's blockades of aid as well as its deliberate targeting of hospitals, educational facilities, and cultural heritage sites can be argued to have (c) subjected Palestinians to conditions calculated to bring about their destruction. Israel's attacks on birthing centers may also amount to (d) imposing measures to prevent Palestinian births. This element is generally not contested; it is the second element, dolus specialis, that some argue is not satisfied.

By Black's Law Dictionary, ethnic cleansing is:

The elimination of a particular people from an area or country because of their racial or national identity; specif., the officially sanctioned forcible and systematic diminution or elimination of targeted ethnic minorities from a geographic area, usu. by confiscating real and personal property, ordering or condoning mass murders and mass rapes, and expelling the survivors.

Your argument that this is not ethnic cleansing boils down to:

Ethnic cleansing isn't a bad enough crime and would be on shaky legal ground (literally couldn't give less of a shit)

Other people call it genocide (I'm sure I can find plenty of scholars who vigorously disagree)

You'd have to have genocidal intent if you were doing ethnic cleansing (arguable, especially from someone who doesn't have an education in mental state vs. intent)

And you used so, so many words to say this.

My point was that there are actions here that seem more intended to drive people out than kill all of them. Okay? Okay.

I'm not trying to be mean here, but this remains not my shit, I remain concerned about American atrocities that I can actually do something about, and I'm not sure why you spent so much fucking time on this. It's not like I said "oh, it's just ethnic cleansing! Totally understandable! Israel is forgiven!" Do you think I think ethnic cleansing is good? Like, why spend all these words trying to convince me of this? What is the goal here? Did you even touch on reading the rest of the post with the "language purity" bullshit?

“My point was that there are actions here that seem more intended to drive people out than kill all of them.” This argument is exactly why I made my post. Genocide is not “killing all of a group.” It is one of the five aforementioned acts—killing, inflicting serious bodily or mental harm, creating destructive conditions, preventing births, transferring children—done with the specific intent to destroy a group in whole or in part. In fact, genocide can theoretically occur without a single killing! Whether ethnic cleansing can occur without genocidal intent is debated by scholars, which helps further explain why it does not exist as a standalone crime. This is also why I am not engaging with your comments about “language purity”. Genocide is a specific crime with a precise definition, it is not “language purity” to critique its incorrect use. It was you who invoked your profession to give a “pedantic answer” in the first place! I’m also not sure why you’re opposed to leaning on the legal analysis of experts as, in your words, this “remains not [your] shit”.

Yeah I can tell you’re not a legal scholar. Because what you have done here is, in a place where I referenced a specific source of a specific definition, you have instead substituted your own set of definitions and therefore decided you have disproven my argument.

A person can’t use the words “ethnic cleansing” to cover up mass murders and mass rapes if those are specifically part of the definition that person has specifically used. Which it was. Historical reference for word meaning is only relevant if a definition has not been agreed upon in advance.

Still don’t care that it’s not a specific enough crime for you.

And I’m not “opposed to leaning on the analysis of experts;” I’m just aware that your appeal to authority is a fallacy.

I understand that you are talking like this is an academic paper because you want your point of view to seem like an inevitability instead of an opinion. It’s certainly not working on me because your actual argument just isn’t strong. It’s also nigh unreadable. Reconsider your tactics and your purpose.

I’m not interested in this anymore. This is boring. You are starting a fight not because I took the side of “the enemy” but because my language wasn’t good enough for you. This is the action of someone who has no way to do any moral good except by language policing. Someone who has no direction in their life. Does this rage make you feel less empty? Kind of short-lived, isn’t it? Addictive? Always makes you need to bully someone new to get the same feeling? Ever wonder if you’re actually doing any good at all?

pili-pala, pilipala

iâr fach yr haf ("small summer chicken")

glöyn byw ("living coal")

plufyn bach yr haf ("little summer feather")

colomen fyw ("living dove")

eilir ("spring")

Man, y'all, I didn't even bring up whether or not it "counts" as genocide. I didn't refuse to call it a genocide or agree with calling it a genocide. It is truly incredible that expressing almost zero opinion on this has caused so many people to decide confidently what it means my opinion is.

This is not all on you, anon; I notice that you're not directly critiquing me but saying what seems to be your personal opinion. Apparently I need to settle this too, though, so:

My first opinion: it is bonkers that I need to express an opinion in order to stop everyone from deciding my opinion for me.

My second opinion: What Israel is doing is unequivocally wildly disproportionately harmful and the figures I have seen about bombings are shocking and appalling and horrific. There is zero doubt in my mind that Israel is violating international law (if international law can even be called "law" when it barely exists in the first place, but that's a rant for another day). There is zero doubt in my mind that Israel is ensuring there will be people who feel justified in violent retaliation for decades based on these events. I believe there's no justification for bombing civilians.

My third opinion: Looking up "genocide" in Black's Law Dictionary, I think Israel's actions actually fall closer to the related definition of "ethnic cleansing" than "genocide" itself. Ask a lawyer, get a pedantic answer.

My fourth opinion: The United States hasn't just actively funded genocide and ethnic cleansing, it's done it, extraordinarily often. In fact, when your brother says "everyone's done it" he's kind of more right than he realizes. One of the theories of democratic development that's less discussed, for obvious reasons, is that some form of genocide is actually somehow beneficial for, or some kind of pre-condition to, a nation-state developing democratic norms or ideals. This is a theory I learned about in school, particularly from the book The Dark Side of Democracy. Isn't that some fucked-up shit?

My fifth opinion: I appreciate that you are actually mentioning that America is not only funding but doing genocides. This is true, and it's something I happen to know a lot more about and therefore have more opinions about than Israel and Palestine. I'm happy to expound at length about federal court tyranny over Indian reservations. Missing and murdered indigenous women. Actual current right now American concentration camps. Places where my opinion might be actually valuable and educational!

The frustrating part about these stupid language-purity tests is that they are about excluding people who literally agree with you. Does what I said above make me the enemy? Y'all make me want to refuse to answer just because the question is so far beside the point and it pisses me off.

Genocide has a precise legal definition. In the law, there are two primary sources for the crime of genocide: the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and Article 6 of the Rome Statute. In both, the requisite elements are:

(1) actus reus—any of the following acts: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

(2) dolus specialis—the specific intent to "destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group . . . ."

Ethnic cleansing, by contrast, is not a recognized crime. Its legal origins are in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia ("ICTY"). The ICTY defined ethnic cleansing as "rendering an area ethnically homogenous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area." See here at 33. Importantly, the ICTY's report noted that "[t]hose practices constitute crimes against humanity and can be assimilated to specific war crimes. Furthermore, such acts could also fall within the meaning of the Genocide Convention." Id. (emphasis added). The necessary distinction is that ethnic cleansing, at least under the ICTY's definition, "can be assimilated to specific war crimes", whereas the prohibition of genocide is a jus cogens norm.

Jus cogens norms "reflect and protect fundamental values of the international community, are hierarchically superior to other rules of international law and are universally applicable." See here at 105. This matters because it means that the prohibition of genocide is absolute and applies whether a state is at peace or in war. War crimes, on the other hand, can only occur during war. Is it incorrect to say that Israel is conducting ethnic cleansing in Gaza? No. The problem, though, is that when assessing culpability for war crimes, the calculus is different than genocide. The inquiry is not into whether the crime was done with the specific intent to destroy a group in whole or in part. To evaluate ethnic cleansing (which, notably, has no evaluative criteria because it is not an independently recognized crime) absent this element fails to account for the practices that result in ethnic cleansing. Is it really possible to "render[] an area ethnically homogenous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups" without genocidal intent? I am not sure. What I am sure of is that the International Court of Justice noted that ethnic cleansing may demonstrate genocidal intent in reference to the ICTY's findings. See here at para. 190.

Now, on the question of whether Israel is committing genocide. Regarding the actus reus, Israel has (a) engaged in killings of Palestinians and (b) inflicted serious bodily and mental harm on Palestinians. Israel's blockades of aid as well as its deliberate targeting of hospitals, educational facilities, and cultural heritage sites can be argued to have (c) subjected Palestinians to conditions calculated to bring about their destruction. Israel's attacks on birthing centers may also amount to (d) imposing measures to prevent Palestinian births. This element is generally not contested; it is the second element, dolus specialis, that some argue is not satisfied.

By Black's Law Dictionary, ethnic cleansing is:

The elimination of a particular people from an area or country because of their racial or national identity; specif., the officially sanctioned forcible and systematic diminution or elimination of targeted ethnic minorities from a geographic area, usu. by confiscating real and personal property, ordering or condoning mass murders and mass rapes, and expelling the survivors.

Your argument that this is not ethnic cleansing boils down to:

Ethnic cleansing isn't a bad enough crime and would be on shaky legal ground (literally couldn't give less of a shit)

Other people call it genocide (I'm sure I can find plenty of scholars who vigorously disagree)

You'd have to have genocidal intent if you were doing ethnic cleansing (arguable, especially from someone who doesn't have an education in mental state vs. intent)

And you used so, so many words to say this.

My point was that there are actions here that seem more intended to drive people out than kill all of them. Okay? Okay.

I'm not trying to be mean here, but this remains not my shit, I remain concerned about American atrocities that I can actually do something about, and I'm not sure why you spent so much fucking time on this. It's not like I said "oh, it's just ethnic cleansing! Totally understandable! Israel is forgiven!" Do you think I think ethnic cleansing is good? Like, why spend all these words trying to convince me of this? What is the goal here? Did you even touch on reading the rest of the post with the "language purity" bullshit?

or are you misusing that phrase?

warning: i made this while annoyed and tired so feel free to correct it how you see fit

I have noticed a couple of people trying to use the word mansplaining to get trans men or trans masculine people to shut up about whatever topic it is they're discussing