Genocide has a very clear and precise definition in international law, read it
The answer to that question is entirely irrelevant to whether this was a genocide or not
5 Likes
old Sylvanas cared about her people. Unlike Arthas she was very much a good person before the undeath stuff happened. But Afrasiabi had a personal grudge and ruined Metzenâs work on purpose.
Only so that they could die so that she would not.
She never loved her people.
She saw them as useful tools.
As Verimathras pointed out: sheâs exactly like a Dreadlord, and she didnât argue the fact.
Luckily, Alliance Ranger General Sylvanas (seems) to love the Forsaken, so you might get your mommy for the very first time.
But alsoâŚ
1 Like
Hmm ?
/10char
I just think itâs funny. That isnât a knock or argument against anyone here. I just donât think the definition is very precise.
1 Like
He copied and pasted the U.N. definition, but have you read that within the context of this.
Ah right, I for one do think itâs fairly precise since itâs based on both the acts themselves and the intentionality
Covers not only the mass killing of civilians but also the targeting of vital infrastructure and other operations aimed at effectively destroying the targeted people as a group. Itâs functional enough
2 Likes
This is a very white thing to ask tbh. Nothing justifies genocide.
1 Like
My point is that people act like itâs trying to wipe out an entire group when by definition thatâs not always the case.
I think youâre desperate for a âgotcha!â which isnât there.
This is a very woke thing to say. I wasnât saying what happened to the Shatterspear was right, I was questioning the motive.
Downplaying or denying genocide isnât a âwhiteâ thing any more than itâs a black thing (Rwandan Genocide) or an Asian thing (what Chinaâs doing to the Uyghur Muslims).
And how many people does it take for the âin partâ to count as a genocide. While it can be murder, I donât think killing two out of a thousand is a genocide.
3 Likes
In part⌠makes the definition a bit of a catch all.
1 Like
Are we just sick of this conversation now and trying to to get it locked?
1 Like
Good.
You phrased your question as âwas it because of what they are or what they did.â Neither one justifies it. You acted as if one would be better than the other.
In a western forum, itâs white.
Itâs not about number. Itâs about the intent to eliminate a group.
This is true. I think thatâs why (if it enters the conversation at all) it should do so from the biased perspective of an in-universe character. As a utility word itâs use is to demonize the acts of an enemy. No one ever goes before the UN and says âweâre gonna do some genocide, but only a partâ and anyone accused of genocide is likely to argue they didnât intend and didnât accomplish the destruction of a people (except in part).
If Blizzard isnât being biased, it has no use for the word from a 3rd person omniscient narrator. Because genocide is generally very slanted language. Obviously we need some subjectivity in the narrative voice, because we donât want it to read like a coroners report, but the word âgenocideâ is so subjective that no one has to admit it actually happened and it changes nothing about the facts of the lore. I can say âIt wasnât really a genocideâ and when someone says âthatâs the lore we gotâ itâs the lore we have weather I am right or wrong because âgenocideâ is just an interpretation of mass murder, or sterilization or ethnic cleansing. In the same way that the purge of Dalaran is a genocide even if the devs DONâT say it.
1 Like
"Can your blood atone for genocide, orc? Your Horde killed countless innocents with its rampage across Stormwind and Lordaeron. Do you really think you can just sweep all that away and cast aside your guilt so easily? No, your kind will never change, and I will never stop fighting you.â
Funny how the term was used all the way back in Warcraft 3.
Funny how I just said that if it enters the narrative at all it should be done exactly as shown above.
I donât think I replied to you. Just stating my own fascination at how the term somehow exists in WoW.
Oh, my bad.
1 Like
If you want to think soâŚ
That was in response to someone claiming what happened to the Shatterspear was based on what they are. Your ilk really need to learn to appreciate context (I know thatmakes it harder to quote-mine your opponents, but thatâs a good thing).
There are non-white people in the West, and the forum is also in Oceania, which is predominantly Asian.
Thatâs a stupid definition because itâs too easy to misapply/abuse.
Either one makes it genocide. The intent of asking that was to downplay it clearly, or at worst, argue that itâs not genocide.
They are less likely to be genocide-supporters, though outliers exist.
âThe Westâ is not purely based on geographical location. Austrlia and New Zealand, where I think youâre from, are Western.
If you think so, sure.