Zimbabwe 2.0 Inbound

ttaskmaster · 2 Mar 2018 at 11:38

Diddums said:
The country (until recently) suffered rolling blackouts

Whereas now, they're wanting the white outs!

Too harsh?

hurfdurf · 3 Mar 2018 at 13:31

Dis86 · 3 Mar 2018 at 14:17

Hurf, does that mean if I come kick the crap out of you I can take everything you own?

hurfdurf · 3 Mar 2018 at 14:21

Dis86 said:
Hurf, does that mean if I come kick the crap out of you I can take everything you own?

Sure, come try it.

hurfdurf · 3 Mar 2018 at 14:27

Moses said:
Now apply that to reality. Do stop having property rights?

It's only fair, violence is the equaliser. The people are free to try it with the known risks involved in doing so.

Might is right, Whites did it to Blacks generations ago, and now are claiming it's unfair that it happen the other way around? Nah. It sucks that children have to pay for the crimes of their parents, but this is what happens when mistakes are not adequately addressed. One cannot claim the benefits of one's previous generations actions but none of the guilt and think that they are safe from retribution.

Surely with hard work, dedication and quickly getting over it the dislocated Whites will make a decent living for themselves, as that's what they like to tell the Blacks in SA. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

dowie · 3 Mar 2018 at 14:37

hurfdurf said:
It's only fair, violence is the equaliser. The people are free to try it with the known risks involved in doing so.

Might is right, Whites did it to Blacks generations ago, and now are claiming it's unfair that it happen the other way around? Nah. It sucks that children have to pay for the crimes of their parents, but this is what happens when mistakes are not adequately addressed. One cannot claim the benefits of one's previous generations actions but none of the guilt and think that they are safe from retribution.

Surely with hard work, dedication and quickly getting over it the dislocated Whites will make a decent living for themselves, as that's what they like to tell the Blacks in SA. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

So if the whites formed a militia and tried to fight an insurgency/overthrow the government or perhaps claim a chunk of the country as an independent state you'd be cool with it, because "it's only fair,violence is the equaliser"?

hurfdurf · 3 Mar 2018 at 14:44

dowie said:
So if the whites formed a militia and tried to fight an insurgency/overthrow the government or perhaps claim a chunk of the country as an independent state you'd be cool with it, because "it's only fair,violence is the equaliser"?

Removing myself and my morals from the equation.

Yes.

There is no point pretending we have evolved beyond our past yet, what was fair back then is fair now.

dowie · 3 Mar 2018 at 14:55

hurfdurf said:
There is no point pretending we have evolved beyond our past yet, what was fair back then is fair now.

It isn't pretending... society has evolved beyond the past... we have laws, property rights etc.. part of the point of doing this is so we don't have a situation where people are fighting each other for land, everything is fair game etc.. as that isn't a very stable system at all

hurfdurf · 3 Mar 2018 at 15:01

dowie said:
It isn't pretending... society has evolved beyond the past... we have laws, property rights etc.. part of the point of doing this is so we don't have a situation where people are fighting each other for land, everything is fair game etc.. as that isn't a very stable system at all

They had laws back then, they were ignored. Why is it OK for one generation to do it and have their ancestors reap the rewards but then claim they have to not only pay no compensation and also balk at the idea that the reverse could happen to them.

dowie · 3 Mar 2018 at 15:13

hurfdurf said:
They had laws back then, they were ignored.

What laws are you referring to?

Why is it OK for one generation to do it and have their ancestors reap the rewards but then claim they have to not only pay no compensation and also balk at the idea that the reverse could happen to them.

I was talking in general about the idea of using violence to claim land etc... as I already pointed out it isn't a very stable system. Likewise we have aristocrats etc.. in the UK too, but I don't think a violent uprising to take say the Duke of Westminster's estate is a very good idea regardless of any bleating about "muh ancestors" etc..

I never said it was OK for one generation to do it btw... Bit dubious to claim this is necessarily the reverse too, plenty of the blacks in South Africa today are there because their ancestors moved there after the colonists arrived. Plenty of the land was rather sparsely inhabited by some bushmen etc...

jsmoke · 3 Mar 2018 at 15:22

In a practical sense, if they go ahead with land reclamation without compensation, do the cops just physically remove the people and kick them onto the road, probably they keep all their belongings too.

hurfdurf · 3 Mar 2018 at 17:32

jsmoke said:
In a practical sense, if they go ahead with land reclamation without compensation, do the cops just physically remove the people and kick them onto the road, probably they keep all their belongings too.

I imagine it will involve arresting and disappearances

Malevolence · 3 Mar 2018 at 17:47

hurfdurf said:
Why is it OK for one generation to do it and have their ancestors reap the rewards

Pedantic I know, but unless they have a time-machine wouldn't it be the descendants who reap the rewards rather than the ancestors?

Nasher · 3 Mar 2018 at 17:56

jsmoke said:
In a practical sense, if they go ahead with land reclamation without compensation, do the cops just physically remove the people and kick them onto the road, probably they keep all their belongings too.

Yea and the lack of press coverage in the west is ridiculous. I guess genocide is fine as long as it's against white people..

We need to cut ties with SA straight away and they need to be booted from the Commonwealth as well

dowie · 3 Mar 2018 at 18:59

It isn't "genocide" it could be in future (though rather unlikely).

It could become "ethnic cleansing" that doesn't necessarily infer mass killings of a population from one ethnic group but also just the forced removal of them.

hurfdurf · 3 Mar 2018 at 21:50

Malevolence said:
Pedantic I know, but unless they have a time-machine wouldn't it be the descendants who reap the rewards rather than the ancestors?

Ha good point well made.

dowie · 3 Mar 2018 at 22:39

Moses said:
Genocide doesn’t require mass killing.

I never said it did, though plenty of defenitions do require that - sure you could technically prevent births, take away children etc.. and have a "genocide" under *some* definitions of you want to pointlessly nit pick. The OED uses the mass killing definition AFAIK.

Regardless relatively few events constitute a genocide though and if things were to kick off then "ethnic cleansing" would perhaps be a more suitable term - that was the point in the previous post - certainly causing the majority white population to leave the country (even if lots of people were killed) wouldn't be a "genocide" but could be seen as ethnic cleansing.

dowie · 3 Mar 2018 at 22:41

Moses said:
I’m talking about the definition which matters. The one in the Rome Statute.

I did gather than, though again it is rather irrelevant and my point still stands. I never made the claim that Genocide required mass killings in the first place. I'm not sure what your point is?

dowie · 3 Mar 2018 at 22:48

Moses said:
Why did you mentioned mass killings, then? Then double down on that being used in the definition of genocide? Classic Dowie manoeuvring which ends in circles upon circles of desperate dodging .

I used mass killings in reference to "ethnic cleansing" which I pointed out was rather more likely than genocide. (Also I'd note that it doesn't have a legal definition for you to get your panties in a twist over but is commonly used for events that don't get classified as "genocide").

Classic nothing, you've decided to nit pick over something that wasn't even said while completely missing the point of the post in the first place... Perhaps try to focus on what has actually been posted.

Do you think there will likely be a "genocide" in South Africa? I don't...

dowie · 3 Mar 2018 at 23:07

Moses said:
Where’d I say it would be? I was merely pointing out how you think genocide’s defined is the wrong way to do so in any practical sense. The response to that is to just go, ‘oh cool, I clearly misunderstood. Thanks for enlightening me .’

Again you're making assumptions, you weren't correcting anything you attempted to nit pick based on something that wasn't there.

Moses said:
Rather than ethnic cleansing when it’s not genocide, it’d be far more appropriate to consider whether it’s a crime, or crimes, against humanity. The Rome Statute has everything you need in plain English.

I don’t really care what misinformed lay people commonly call stuff - that leads to spackers starting threads saying stuff’s genocide to stir trouble. I’d rather point out the appropriate terminology and how it’s defined.

That was the point of the post in the first place, to point out that a genocide is rather unlikely! It basically requires the destruction of a population and pretty much every single time it has happened in history that has involved mass killings (again yes, if you'd like to nit pick, then forced sterilisation of every white South African could constitute a genocide too).

The point was that "ethnic cleansing" is more likely and that that can occur through the forced removal of a population - see for example

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing#Genocide

ECHR quoting the ICJ said:
It [i.e., ethnic cleansing] can only be a form of genocide within the meaning of the [Genocide] Convention, if it corresponds to or falls within one of the categories of acts prohibited by Article II of the Convention. Neither the intent, as a matter of policy, to render an area "ethnically homogeneous", nor the operations that may be carried out to implement such policy, can as such be designated as genocide: the intent that characterizes genocide is "to destroy, in whole or in part" a particular group, and deportation or displacement of the members of a group, even if effected by force, is not necessarily equivalent to destruction of that group, nor is such destruction an automatic consequence of the displacement.

thus my original post that you wanted to nit pick over:

dowie said:
It isn't "genocide" it could be in future (though rather unlikely).

It could become "ethnic cleansing" that doesn't necessarily infer mass killings of a population from one ethnic group but also just the forced removal of them.

Sure I could say thank you for pointing out something that isn't particularly relevant, that in theory you could have a "genocide" without mass killings (such as via forced sterilisations). Genocide relates to the destruction of a population AFAIK all genocides in history have involved mass killings (unless you have an example?). But again it is missing the point of the post, the point was that genocide is unlikely and ethnic cleansing/removal of the population is rather more likely than genocide (if things were to get that far). I'm wondering if perhaps you confused genocide and ethnic cleansing yourself as what you were trying to highlight is rather irrelevant.