People who die in Genocide, generally deserve it

Debates: 18

Posts: 2,806

07.16.2022 08:19PM

I was looking at the Cambodian Killing fields. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_Fields

What many don't realize is that the patriotic revolutionaries, killed many of the worst people in their country. The intellectuals. They targeted the educated.

Think about this. A country can get pretty bad before any group decides to revolt. So when a revolt does occur in a country, it is usually because a situation just became unbearable. The khmer Rouge did not just randomly decide to start killing people, things were bad. real bad.

You need to ask yourself this. Who is to blame for when things in a country go bad? Well friends, that is the people with the most influence over society. It's the people in charge. A boat doesn't start sinking unless it is manned by a shitty captain. The people in Cambodia that had the most influence over the direction of society, and therefore the most blame, were the wealthy, the educated, the politicians. The same exact people that khmer rouge targeted. That entire genocide, as is most genocides, was justifiable.

If the people with the most control over society aren't to blame for a shitty society, than who is?

I hope the sri Lankan people get a lot of blood on their hands so they can't plant the tree of liberty in their country, so they can have justice for the situation the oligarchs put them in.

Intelligence_06

Debates: 167

Posts: 3,837

Intelligence_06

07.17.2022 02:32AM

The title is a clickbait. You are saying the people running the country deserve it, not the actual people who died in the genocide.

Debates: 117

Posts: 8,689

07.17.2022 05:57AM

-->

@Intelligence_06

A boat doesn't start sinking unless it is manned by a shitty captain.

Pretty dumb.

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,255

07.17.2022 10:25AM

-->

@PREZ-HILTON

What a load of rubbish.

And I can't be bothered to explain why.

Earth

Debates: 4

Posts: 2,355

Earth

07.17.2022 11:37AM

Have a nice vacation Wylted.

Debates: 5

Posts: 3,236

07.18.2022 12:03AM

-->

@oromagi

You meant to tag Wylted.

Debates: 117

Posts: 8,689

07.18.2022 12:29AM

-->

@TheUnderdog

No need. As the author of this topic, WyIted gets auto:cc'd

Debates: 564

Posts: 19,924

07.18.2022 09:52PM

-->

@PREZ-HILTON

Sri Lankans aren't killing much at all, instead while the Tamils were branded terrorists (and some indeed were) during a very long and tenuous civil war, few in the Western world know the other side of the story, the Sinhalese leadership were psychopathic and have a lot to answer for, now after further corruption pisses off even the Sinhalese, the Rajakapaksas are running and hiding like the vermin they are.

Debates: 564

Posts: 19,924

07.19.2022 01:38PM

Rajapaksa(s)*

sorry for misspelling the family name of the most corrupt family known to Sri Lankan history, good fucking riddance. Enjoy whatever place (for now, Maldives) you are hiding out in, I hope they treat you as kindlly as you treated the Tamils and poor.

#10

Debates: 5

Posts: 3,236

07.22.2022 01:00AM

-->

@oromagi

You tagged intelligence.

17 days later

#11

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,875

08.08.2022 11:38PM

-->

@zedvictor4

"An open mind can entertain an idea and still not accept it"

#12

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,255

08.09.2022 07:00AM

-->

@sadolite

For sure.

#13

Reece101

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,905

Reece101

08.09.2022 11:37AM

People who die in genocide are generally the most propagandised against.

#14

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,875

08.13.2022 01:02PM

-->

@oromagi

You ever been in a boat with a shitty captain?

Topic's author

#15

Debates: 18

Posts: 2,806

08.19.2022 01:28PM

-->

@oromagi

A boat doesn't start sinking unless it is manned by a shitty captain.
Pretty dumb.

I have several times been in charge of large groups of people and I have always been really good at my job. I start by blaming myself for every problem.

Of course my psychologist says I have been good at those jobs despite this not because of it. I readily admit it's likely a psychological problem on my part

I did one time see this GM get slightly worse results than me, but watching her she placed the blame for things on the crew and managers in general and it worked for her. On top of that I noticed that her job was significantly easier and she didn't sacrifice that much in terms of quality.

I also tend to keep quitting higher paying supervisory jobs because of burn out. That doesn't necessarily mean my approach to blaming the leader is wrong though. Perhaps I am just to much of a pussy to handle all the pressure I take on. Perhaps somebody who is more of a man (or strong woman) could do it. My theory is I am just too much of a pussy for my inability to sustain the level of pressure I put on me.

Topic's author

#16

Debates: 18

Posts: 2,806

08.19.2022 01:29PM

-->

@zedvictor4

What a load of rubbish.

And I can't be bothered to explain why.

Big mistake if you have the answer, because somebody who one day might be in a position to genocide the wealthy, could possibly be swayed by the logic you lay out here

#17

Debates: 117

Posts: 8,689

08.19.2022 08:36PM

-->

@sadolite

-->@oromagi
You ever been in a boat with a shitty captain?

One time I went seal-watching on Kenmare Bay on a little old trawler. The captain drank so hard that about halfway through the tour he became unintelligible. This was a problem the captain was well prepared for as he pulled out a tape recorder that took over his story telling right from the point when his tongue began to fail him.

#18

Debates: 117

Posts: 8,689

08.19.2022 08:43PM

-->

@PREZ-HILTON

What I meant was that your metaphor was pretty dumb.

A boat doesn't start sinking unless it is manned by a shitty captain.

So let's test the wisdom of your little aphorism with a thought experiment. You are on sailboat with the finest of all possible sailboat captains. The sailboat is hit fore and aft by two torpedoes launched from a Virginia-class submarine. Will the boat refuse to sink because of the quality of its captain?

wisdom falsified

#19

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,255

08.19.2022 09:27PM

-->

@PREZ-HILTON

Odds are, the wealthy will instigate the genocide from the safety of their fortresses.

Topic's author

#20

Debates: 18

Posts: 2,806

08.19.2022 10:04PM

-->

@oromagi

So let's test the wisdom of your little aphorism with a thought experiment. You are on sailboat with the finest of all possible sailboat captains. The sailboat is hit fore and aft by two torpedoes launched from a Virginia-class submarine. Will the boat refuse to sink because of the quality of its captain?

As far as Khmer Rouge was concerned, do you think it's ruling class had an opportunity to avoid a lot of the negative impacts economically and socially to the country?

Really people don't commit revolution if they have a full belly and are gainfully employed, no matter how oppressive the regime.

I can tell you that if Ii was the captain I would blame myself for a myriad of "woulda coulda shoulda" . In a role such as being a part of the ruling class in the country. It's going to have more abstract problems to deal with, so the woulda coulda shouldas would be even stronger and a lost of more viable options in hind sight.

We are Americans though Oromagi, we believe we can control our destiny, that the right political choices will lead to freedom and prosperity. If we know the right choices can have those results

This brings up some interesting questions. You seem to almost agree with the more disgusting suggestion of this.

The first question is

Who deserves the blame?

You seem to think that the ruling class possibly can't be blamed because a lot is out of their control. I think the next question is more significant though and it's one ignored in this thread.

If the ruling class get a disproportionate amount of the blame, do they deserve to be genocides because of it?

The second question is what I want to get answers to, and why I created this thread. I almost feel like giving my answer is a type of poisoning the well, and people will not want to discuss further if I do.

If I listen to the worst parts of myself, I would say yes. Fuck them all, let them die. I have a lot of hate towards the wealthy and powerful in general.

However really, slaughtering them is pointless. Any damage done to the country can probably be reversed quickly by allying with them and helping them obtain the wisdom and resources to do the most helpful things, as well as providing the infrastructure to allow for more wise rule.

I want to hear what the correct response is, if we can take away the abstractness of policy making and be sure the ruling class is responsible for the decay of a country?

Do we ignore the fact they are to blame?

If not do we punish them, and if so how?

#21

Debates: 117

Posts: 8,689

08.20.2022 12:11AM

-->

@Wylted

I don't much about Cambodia but I know enough to say your argument in rooted in deep ignorance and stupidity.

Your argument is

P1: In 1975, The Communist Khmer Rouge overthrew the 3 year old US-backed Khmer Republic and killed everybody who supported Democracy or Theism

P2:The Khmer Republic was in charge and so must have been responsible for the Khmer Rouge's discontent

C1: Therefore, the massacre of all pro-Democracy or Buddhist Cambodians was entirely just.

The khmer Rouge did not just randomly decide to start killing people, things were bad. real bad.

Nobody was more responsible for the state of Cambodia in 1975 then Khmer Rouge who re-installed the same monarchy ruling Cambodia since the King of Siam installed the in 1796. Pol Pot and his companions were children of the Cambodian aristocracy, educated for free at the Sorbonne and the salons of Paris because their parent served overseers and muscle for the French Imperial plantation state of Cambodia. They studied Marx and Mao and preached the ruthless destruction of the Buddhist priesthood and the middle-class as the obstacle to absolute atheist power over the peasantry on behalf of their benefactor Mao and Ho Chi MInh.

The people in Cambodia that had the most influence over the direction of society, and therefore the most blame, were the wealthy, the educated, the politicians. The same exact people that khmer rouge targeted.

This is profoundly ignorant of the facts and basically just blind faith autocratic propaganda. Cambodia was a monarchy held up by the French government until the Communist Revolution in China destabilized all of southeast Asia. As the French withdrew, the aristocracy turned to Mao and Ho Chi Minh to help them uphold the aristocracy against the increasingly discontent peasants but now King Sihanouk was held in power by the right and left extremes against which proved entirely unsustainable. In 1970 a massive peasant's revolt against foreign occupation by the North Vietnamese army (while King Sihanouk was partying in Europe) dethroned the King and installed a new Cambodian Republic with majority support although a substantial minority still wanted a King and just wanted Vietnam and China out. That minority was exploited by the exiled aristocrats. The North Vietnamese immediately invaded Cambodia and a bloody civil war was fought for four years with the Khmer Rouge and the elites siding with the North Vietnamese invasion. With heavy Chinese backing the alliance of elites and foreigners overthrew the people and installed a Maoist atheist state but also hypocritically re-instated the King and Pol Pot's aristocracy.

Wylted stupidly thinks that Khmer Rouge was some kind of grassroots people's movement overthrowing and murdering the aristocracy in Cambodia but the exact opposite was true. When Wylted talks about the intellectuals, he is using Pol Pot's codespeak for Buddhist monks, who were generally the teachers and thinkers and philosophers of Cambodia. Wylted is endorsing forced atheism by mass murder of anybody who says there is a god.

Naturally, the King betrayed his people in favor of foreign powers again in 1079 and sided with the Vietnamese against the Khmer Rouge, beginning another civil war that the Vietnamese slowly won over the next 20 years. The King's grandson is now king and the elite families that always controlled the Cambodian people with the help of foreign powers still reigns supreme over a poor and subject people.

Topic's author

#22

Debates: 18

Posts: 2,806

08.20.2022 01:50AM

-->

@oromagi

You are getting lost in the details. The example is something meant as a jumping off point for a deeper conversation.

If the ruling class deserves a disproportionate amount of the blame for the failures of society, do they deserve to be genocided because of it?

If not how should they be punished if at all and why?

It's an important question because a lot of people in every country on the planet is suffering and there are political leaders who potentially can lead them to commit atrocities against the ruling class or at least perceived ruling class.

The far left in a country can potentially seize power and start slaughtering wealthy business men. The far right can do the same and slaughter government decision makers and power brokers in the private sector.

The far left and far right both feed off of cynicism which causes some hatred or anger towards existing power structures.

#23

Debates: 117

Posts: 8,689

08.20.2022 05:54AM

-->

@Wylted

-->@oromagi
You are getting lost in the details. The example is something meant as a jumping off point for a deeper conversation.

I don't think it can be fairly said that you are intellectually honest enough to hold your end in any deeper conversation in any subject.
Let's recall that your thesis is: VICTIMS of GENOCIDE GENERALLY DESERVE DEATH ...Right?

Native Americans in 1500,
the Holocaust,
Holodomor,
The Killing Fields,
Armenia,
Rwanda,
the Rape of Nanking,

they all had it coming: that's your thesis.

But then your disinformed argument was that the rulers have it coming and ignorantly asserted that the theists and democrats of Cambodia were somehow the ruling class while the actual aristocracy and royals in the Khmer rouge were somehow their unhappy subjects.

In other words, your information is the exact opposite of the truth, but you don't let that fact interfere with your manifestly stupid, wrong conclusion.
In other words, you don't know how to tell elites from the middle class or the working class or the poor and you don't care, you just hope to justify GENOCIDE.

Now you're saying I should disregard your lack of fundamental facts as mere detail and focus on your thesis, which, unsurpisingly, is profoundly changed:

If the ruling class deserves a disproportionate amount of the blame for the failures of society, do they deserve to be genocided because of it?

By definition, GENOCIDE is the mass murder of whole classifications of people: Ukrainians, Polish Jews, Buddhist Cambodians, etc
By definition, the ruling class of any society is a very tiny minority- one or two from every million.
By definition, the ruling class is not ever "a people" and so, by definition, you can't ever GENOCIDE the rulers.

Again you have your disinformation calibrated to the opposite of the facts.
The ruling class commits 100% of all GENOCIDEs and is never the victim of GENOCIDE.

What you are talking about is regicide. Before the Age of Reason, about 21% of monarchs were murdered by their subjects.

This often meant civil war, purges, dynastic power struggles, getting taken over by foreign powers, etc.

Incredibly inefficient and economically destructive
The subject of half of Shakespeare- Hamlet, MacBeth, King Leer, Henry IVs, Henry VIs, Richards II & III, Julius Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra, Coriolanus, etc, etc, etc. so much of history was just super wasteful killing king after king.

When the Age of Reason arrived, rational people called Leftists invented democracy as a more efficient method of peacefully transferring power.

If not how should they be punished if at all and why?

Here in America, we limit the maximum damage a bad leader can do to 8 years with a humiliating two-year marathon we call a presidential campaign before the four year mark. If they don't perform this marathon pretty well we vote them out at year four.

Here in the US, we are taught this lesson in third grade social studies.

It's an important question because a lot of people in every country on the planet is suffering and there are political leaders who potentially can lead them to commit atrocities against the ruling class or at least perceived ruling class.

Mostly a terrible idea. Only about 12% of violent regime changes improve the economy or the quality of life for the people. Only half of coup attempts succeed but almost all coup attempts result in increased autocracy, increased misery for the people. That's why smart people invented democracy.

The far left in a country can potentially seize power and start slaughtering wealthy business men.

This almost never happens. This is the purpose for which leftists invented democracy as a solution to right wing coups and purges.

The one example that I think genuinely fits your description is the rise of Robespierre, his execution and the year called "The Reign of Terror" in 1793 France, which clearly surrendered all pretense to Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite in the course of that year.
To the extent that some revolutionaries and regicides call themselves left-wingers in ideology but fail to give power to the the people after taking control, -Communist revolutions in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, The glorious revolution, Napoleon, those projects failed to live up to the definition of left wing anymore. If the people aren't in power then it ain't left wing.

The far left and far right both feed off of cynicism which causes some hatred or anger towards existing power structures.

The smart efficient leftist solution is called democracy. The brutish, wasteful rightist solution is called regicide/coup.

Topic's author

#24

Debates: 18

Posts: 2,806

08.20.2022 10:55AM

-->

@oromagi

I am going to ignore the stuff that is irrelevant to the thought experiment, including the conflation of leftism with liberalism.

1. You mention that the ruling class isn't a big enough amount of people to really be considered a genocide. This almost side steps the question of whether they would be deserving of violent death or not, but you don't because later on you explain you think it typically results in more totalitarianism and less freedom.

I would say that the ruling class is big enough to genocide. I don't know the number of people who have a net worth of over 100 million in America but we you combine them with every politician and retired politician, it's likely at least a 2 million deaths total.

You also ignore the question of whether those people deserve punishment.

#25

Debates: 117

Posts: 8,689

08.20.2022 06:08PM

-->

@PREZ-HILTON

1. You mention that the ruling class isn't a big enough amount of people to really be considered a genocide.

Nope. GENOCIDE is "The systematic killing of substantial numbers of people on the basis of their ethnicity, religion, or nationality" The systematic killing of a whole class in called CLASSICDE. The systematic killing of the leaders is called ELITOCIDE.

you explain you think it typically results in more totalitarianism and less freedom.

Which is why the rational people of the Age of Reason invented democracy.

I would say that the ruling class is big enough to genocide.

Its not about size, its about cultural homogeneity. Its not GENOCIDE if you aren't murdering people because of their race, country or creed.

I don't know the number of people who have a net worth of over 100 million in America

34,507 households- say roughly 100,000 people in those households including children but not including servants.

but we you combine them with every politician and retired politician, it's likely at least a 2 million deaths total.

519,682 elected officials, 96% local govt.

You also ignore the question of whether those people deserve punishment.

Well, that's quite false. I said that the American tradition is to vote them out of office.

Topic's author

#26

Debates: 18

Posts: 2,806