this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
940 points (100.0% liked)

Microblog Memes

7072 readers
2909 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 103 points 2 days ago (1 children)

When genocide and no genocide are both too extreme, maybe a little genocide? Or a genocide far away? Or maybe killing a group that doesn't qualify the definition of genocide?

[–] [email protected] 40 points 2 days ago (6 children)

Or maybe killing a group that doesn't qualify the definition of genocide?

yeah let's kill a group of people that is not a group of people

[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Killing the rich wouldn't be genocide.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago

But it would be pretty based.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

that's only because they aren't a sufficiently large enough group of people

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago

The number of people is irrelevant, it's because being rich isn't a protected class.

To use another example, it used to be legal way back when to sell cocaine and put it in soft drinks. "Cocaine sellers" were a group of people, but not a protected one. Criminalizing that group of people and explicitly trying to make that group not exist anymore isn't a genocide, because "cocaine sellers" can't reasonably be considered a protected class.

Likewise, Antebellum culture in the southern US was heavily influenced by slavery, and slaveowners were eliminated as a group of people, but that's not genocide, because slaveowners are not a protected class.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Just kill 50% at random. Perfectly balanced

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Which niche, obscure, underappreciated work of art is that comment referring to?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago

Well you see that's why the case must be made they are slightly less human.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

In a strict reading, killing LGBTQ wouldn't be genocide because they aren't all related. On the other hand, they do form a (sub) culture. You can argue both ways but they technically don't tick all the boxes. So it's as bad but not jurisprudentially genocide so maybe a compromise we can convince our centrist friend of?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago

it depends how pedantic you are about the exact definition but I think (or hope) most people agree that would be genocide

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It's contrieved. Genocide is about ending procreation. Is somebody LGBTQ when they procreate?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Lmafo queer people procreate all the time. Are you being serious right now?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)
  1. Lesbians can have children on their own if they have sperm from a bank. I met a couple doing that last year and I’ve known lesbian couples who have raised really beautiful families this way.

  2. Gay men use surrogates or they adopt. Not very different from how Musk uses surrogates with his baby mamas. Also, it’s not uncommon for gay men to marry women and have children.

  3. Bisexual people can be attracted to any type of human. Bisexuals are often in straight looking couples. You probably know a lot of bisexuals without knowing it. Bisexuals often marry each other, too in M/F pairing. Unless bisexuals are sterile they have no issues having children. They very often do. But they can also use all other fertility methods.

  4. Trans people can have children. This includes trans men (biological women who transition can still get pregnant). And trans women (men who transition can still get others pregnant). Both can be in relationships with people that can either get them pregnant or get their partner pregnant. I actually knew a trans man who got pregnant multiple times by their non-trans husband.

  5. Queer is a huge group and it includes Asexual people. Asexual people can still have sex, get pregnant, and get others pregnant.

  6. Adoption and surrogates are open to all people. Including normal straight couples. Anyone can have children if they want children. In America, parenthood is a fundamental right.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

They do procreate but not necessarily LGBTQ people

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

We'll kill everyone born at 1pm

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

yeah fuck those guys

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

And to define that this group of people I hate is not a group of people, we asked this judge to weight on the matter.

No we didn't bribe them. Trust me bro.