Recent coverage of Gaza and the West Bank illustrates that, while corporate media occasionally outright call for expelling Palestinians from their land, more often the way these outlets support ethnic cleansing is by declining to call it ethnic cleansing.

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Y’all ever notice that arguments about how to call something steal oxygen away from what to do about it?

    Genocide, ethnic cleansing, and mass-murder are just words. Calling it a pumpkin pie won’t bring back one dead child.

    Reality is independent from language. Words borrow meaning, they’re not the source of it.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Yeah but by turning people away from the media we also isolate them from groups with similar ideals, forcing them into bubbles/echo-chambers which are easily radicalized to promote violence and insurgency.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      Originally it was. Now, in the aftermath of said ethnic cleansing, it’s like a byword for genocide-lite.

    • splinter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      19 hours ago

      No, ethnic cleansing does not necessarily imply killing. It is the forced depopulation of an area, which can be by means of deportation, economic pressure, threat of violence, etc. Genocide is the most extreme form of ethnic cleansing.

      • Zaktor
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Genocide also doesn’t imply killing.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          16 hours ago

          I feel like in common use it does. Some formal definitions don’t require it, but then there’s contradicting formal definitions.

          • Zaktor
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 hours ago

            Yes, and you can destroy a group by means other than killing its members, such as forced sterilization, systematic abuse, or the transfer of children away from the community. It’s the demo that’s being killed, not necessarily its individual members.

          • blazeknave@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 hours ago

            You’re incorrect on this one. Abducting “enemy” children and brainwashing them is genocide. Erasing local language from books and signage is genocide. Part of the definition. You can kill an ethnicity by erasing it and not have to kill a single person.

              • 9bananas@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 hour ago

                maybe read the actual convention on genocide instead of relying on a dictionary then?

                because the case of abducted children stated above is explicitly stated in the convention…the dictionary definition you found is simply wrong and incomplete.

  • Laser@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Can we all just agree there is no “good” media? Journalism died for profits

    • BertramDitore@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      20 hours ago

      No, there are some great independent outlets that are still doing exceptional journalism. Many of the new outlets were founded by reporters who came from mainstream or traditional media but were either laid off or quit because of the profit-above-all-else mindset. As citizens and news consumers this means we have to be pickier and more discerning when it comes to what we read, because we can’t trust that we’ll get everything we need from just a single newspaper anymore. But if you look around you’ll still find some very high quality journalism, it’s just a bit more diffuse than we’re used to.

  • gadfly1999@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    20 hours ago

    “Journalist” is not an ethnicity but they can be cleansed too.

    • gonzo-rand19@moist.catsweat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      18 hours ago

      You could just read it and make your own list instead of asking someone else to get AI to do it for them so they can collate a list for you.