Replying to
@Celeste_pewter@mastodon.social Manchin can go straight to hell.
There should have been someone appointed to take Feinstein's place.
Remote
John Shirley
@JohnShirley2023@mastodon.cloud
Writer of novels in several genres, and story collections; also nonfiction; movie and animation scripts, song lyrics. Speaker (TEDx and elsewhere). Futurist. Blogger. Interests in science, spirituality, the arts. Writer of science-fiction, horror, techno-thrillers, thrillers, westerns. One of the original cyberpunk novelists. Vocalist, records albums, eg "Escape from Gravity" with Jerry King. Has worked in TV and movies: Co-wrote The Crow. New novel: SUBORBITAL 7. https://john-shirley.com
0 Followers
0 Following
14 Posts
Joined November 06, 2022
Replying to
@IngaLovinde@embracing.space @claudiamiles@mastodon.world @Blort@social.tchncs.de @fcktheworld587@social.linux.pizza Still, I said I was able to accept your interpretation of the word as applied to this, to show fellowship and support. I would dispute it no more. I'm only clarifying my hesitation now because you're coming at me here about it, in a way that makes me feel I must defend my point of view.
Replying to
@IngaLovinde@embracing.space @claudiamiles@mastodon.world @Blort@social.tchncs.de @fcktheworld587@social.linux.pizza BUT I decided to accept the usage as you use it, out of a desire to show my support. But when I just looked at the 1948 UN definition, it didn't really match up. I mean, when theyre talking about making life untenable for a group, they mean like when the Armenians were starved to death.. The 1948 definition attaches it to nation, races & religions. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
Replying to
@IngaLovinde@embracing.space @claudiamiles@mastodon.world @Blort@social.tchncs.de @fcktheworld587@social.linux.pizza and I made my disagreement clear because I got a lot of *hate speech* from people for initially disagreeing with it. This made me feel I ought to explain it.
Replying to
@IngaLovinde@embracing.space @claudiamiles@mastodon.world @Blort@social.tchncs.de @fcktheworld587@social.linux.pizza BTW sorry for stringing my response along various replies but I don't have the mastodon arrangement that allows for longer posts.
Replying to
@ZillaMon@mastodon.social @IngaLovinde@embracing.space @claudiamiles@mastodon.world @Blort@social.tchncs.de @fcktheworld587@social.linux.pizza Very true that hate speech can lead to genocide. And it did! Rwanda is a great example. But hate speech alone is not genocide. It is a *warning that genocide might be coming*. As a writer, I don't like to blur words. We need to stop persecution before it becomes genocide--everywhere. However I'm not arguing with anyone's use of the term--not anymore!
Replying to
@claudiamiles@mastodon.world @Blort@social.tchncs.de @fcktheworld587@social.linux.pizza yes the definition has been expanded in some quarters. I can't feel comfortable about some of that myself but I accept the usage now because if it feels that way to you, then that's what it is to you. What is happening is barbaric oppression and they're using trans folk as a stalking horse politically and projecting their own sickness on them, drumming up violence-- that's plenty bad. Trans women and men are being scapegoated--and the Jews were scapegoated.