Only a few minutes in, but I’d like it if the channel had a mix of the usual style and had a few videos like this. Videos with lots of history like this seem to warrant the deep dive. But with other topics where you are just going over concepts, that is probably unnecessary.

I really like the longer styles of videos. I stopped watching videos on this channel a while ago because I was frustrated by how a short they were, but I really enjoyed this one and I’d watch more of them. Doesn’t bother me at all if they are infrequent.

Long format are great, thanks for your work Carneades.

I always loved your channel but my respect for you increased a lot after this video. Thank you! And as for me I prefer longer deep dives into topics but the shorter videos can be nice too.

This kind of long format in the videos is quite entertaining, please keep it up!

Both short and long content. I know a juggling act, but it is appreciated

The context is so important when applying these ideas to real life. I'm sure there are valid criticisms but I think you did a pretty damn good job here. One of your best IMHO.

Yes to longer videos. Thanks

I’m grateful you explained so well. Thanks very much

Ooh, animated face, how did you do it?

Link of one of the related videos you've mentioned is missing from the description box. Namely: "What is Liberalism?" Link should be between "What is the Philosophy of Race?" and "What is Ubuntu Philosophy?".

Before watching the video proper yet, on the question of format preference, I generally like to have smaller, more easily digestible bits of content, at least when it's anything I need to pay actual attention to and not just background noise. But you could take a long video and break it up into a series of shorter videos and have the best of both worlds.

Good idea Carneades, we need to have this discussion, without dogmas nor whether there is a genocide or not in Middle East, because that's what we have to assess

Using the word genocide in situations where it doesnt apply really devalues the term; especially when people throw it out for emotional reasons or to get a reaction. A situation can be really, really bad and tragic without having to use the most extreme/inflammetary language possible. Genocide is a very specific legal term where the most important thing is about intent. For example the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki legally aren’t a genocide; even though thats a really bad or tragic situation thats arguably worse than some actual genocides. Words ought to actually mean something; otherwise they dont matter.

good work 👍

Gallant was specifically talking about Hamas in the "human animals" quote not all Gazans

Let me try to offer a constructive comment. Yes, a difficult topic demands a long form. You cannot provide both the context, data, and analysis of something as complex as genocide any other way. And I would very much enjoy more of that type. However given the complexity, even a long form video does not always give you enough time. To that end I find the short videos which give background necessary to build up toward the long form and you did a great job providing citations back to prior vids. Yet these seems to be a missing middle. The complexities of international law alone would have been a good topic for a mid-sized video. And the parts of this video could have been broken into three videos rather than all run together. Same amount of work on you but more easily digested for the less committed viewer. The break between vids offers time for reflection and time to go back to cited vids. Still, on the whole obviously great work on an incredibly difficult topic. Thank you.

I agree it's a very interesting philosophical topic of genocide, and IMO it'll always be dependent on situations that make genocide far worse or lighter. For example I think that history and the passage of time does lessen the severity of genocide the more distant the event is in the past, like the Spanish settlers and the Aztec empire, and ultimately the fall of the Aztecs due to their lack of adapting to measles and chicken pox the Spanish brought, but also due to a lot of cultural differences like live human sacrifices of warriors nearby Aztec empire which the Spanish under their Christian worldview is viewed as untenable, the language barriers, and so on. In this context you could argue that due to a lot of cultural differences, and even Aztec's refusing to change their cultural practice, live human sacrifices, pissing off nearby tribes which made them reach out to the Spanish for a coalition against the Aztec empire.

Let's cover democide next?

Regarding knowledge vs intent, the way you explain it is unclear to me: it sounded earlier like what mattered is whether an agent knew that their actions contributed to a program where *someone else* had intent to destroy a culture; but later such as when discussing removing children from sexually abusive cults, it sounds like merely knowing that their actions *will have the effect* of destroying a culture, even if *nobody* intends its destruction, would be enough. To clarify, the difference here is: - Alice doesn't intend to destroy the Charlionites, but she knows that doing this thing for Bob will help Bob to intentionally destroy the Charlionites. and - Alice doesn't intend to destroy the Charlionites, nor does anyone else, but she knows that doing this thing will have the effect of destroying Charlionites anyway.

To Answer the title look no further than Gaza allegedly.

Weren't the original Tasmanian natives and the Emishi (arguably) wiped out?

I highly recommend the episode from The Lawfare Podcast: Israel, Gaza, and the Law of War With Natalie K. Orpett, Gabor Rona, Jen Patja Thursday, January 4, 2024 What does international humanitarian law say about the current conflict between Israel and Hamas?

I really appreciated the quality and concise discussion, though I am kinda frightened because of the talking letter-man ;-) One objection: The influence of church systems and its implied legal and social pressures. You are NOT 'free' to change your 'belief' like a pair of socks and therefore ARE born with it to a very certain degree. It is an inelastic good so to speak.

Why are nationality, ethnicity, religion and race special among other constructs in society? 16:36 also, it is difficult to argue that you don’t want to eliminate the cult if it is literally a cult. You are not just protecting children, but also other human as well.

Pass this over to Candace Owens

Re the inclusion of religion among group categories, and maybe you'll get to this soon, it seems like language is just as mutable and voluntary as religion is: kids aren't born speaking any particular language, but they do just grow up learning to speak that way without really making any choice about it (as most people do with religion too), and they could choose to stop speaking that language (although of course it would take some effort, as it would to change religion).

Video starts at 51:06

You may want to review your own video on the Bottleneck Fallacy. 😂

Getting a strong uncanny valley feel from the animated head. Not a fan.

regarding genetic ancestry, the current evidence base supports more the hypothesis that the overwhelming majority of contemporary jewish people aren't of canaanite, but rather much later european descent. the majority of the zionist settlers are genetically unrelated to the canaanites, whereas this is not the case for the majority of the arab people in the region.

i'd also problematize how you handled 'indigeneity' here. it's partially correct, but missing crucial elaboration. 'indigène' is a specifically french colonial word that refers to racial inferiority and indicates a legal lack of civil and political rights. it was a legal term instituted by the code de l'indigénat in 1887 that not only discriminated against, but also criminalized, certain behaviors of local populations (such as going out at night or looking disdainfully at a french person). zionism is a 19th century political movement, inspired by european ethnic-nationalist & colonial movements of the time, believing, like these movements, that every 'nationality' must have a defined territory for its own exclusive use. so the zionists decided that jews everywhere were not actually nationals of their countries, but rather an entirely different national group who could never truly become french, english or any other nationality. they believed that they should all leave and form their own state in palestine, displacing the prior inhabitants. the generic meaning of indigenous is 'originating from a place', eg. humans are indigenous to africa. but most of the time, when referring to groups of people, we use it in a different way. some groups who are commonly called 'indigenous' are; -native north americans -australian aboriginal/torres strait islander people -the many different native groups of central & south america.. some groups who are ~never called 'indigenous' are; -french people -dutch people -german people -italian people -anglo-saxon englishmen -japanese people... the reason is that to be 'indigenous' in the way that the word is by far the most commonly applied to people means 'to currently be colonized'. this is true even though most people don't realize that they're using the term this way, while in practice, they do so anyway. this is why we don't often call germans or italians... 'indigenous', despite many of them technically originate from the country they live in. according to the UN secretariat of the parliament of the permanent forum on indigenous issues, “Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system." according to the ILO's convention; criteria for indigeneous people are; "descent from populations, who inhabited the country or geographical region at the time of conquest, colonisation or establishment of present state boundaries. They retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions, irrespective of their legal status." so 'indigenous' is a status imposed upon people & polities as a result of ongoing colonialism, not simply "i think i'm related to people who lived here a long time ago so i'm indigenous". this has nothing to do with ancient ancestry and everything to do with a group's continued status in relation to colonialism & their position in the dominant society in the state whose borders they happen to live within. indigenous claims to land are not based on esoteric appeals to DNA, nor to ancient history. they are based on a very simple notion that is quite similar to most territorial/independence claims in the present world system: "we are the exact same group of people this land was stolen from, and you are the same state/a clear continuation of the state that took it from us. we have been forced to live within your present state borders & under your oppressive rule, while continuously asserting the wrong that you specifically have done to us. we never ceded the land you took from us, and we never consented to it, or us, being a part of your state. so we want the land, or at least a part of it back, and whether we choose independence or autonomy is our business." it's nothing resembling "i think i'm related to somebody who lived somewhere i've never been 3000 years ago, so if i move there it's mine and i can do anything i want to people living there." even if some people in question were related to some other ancient local, or their religious text said that the land was 'theirs', that's not even a remotely valid justification for ethnic supremacist colonialism. at least according to most reasonable people.

Sneaky sneaky.

At 57:20, your conclusion of "yes" is not supported by your reasoning. Firstly, it seems like you're conflating "Israel" with "jews". Hamas has stated, in line with your reasoning of what is okay to oppose, that they oppose the "zionist entity", not the state of Israel no matter its form. Secondly, putting aside questions about how many civilians Israel killed with its response, it seems fairly clear that the purpose of the attack was to take hostages for exchange and to destroy Israeli military assets.

In October I was surprised some groups were calling it a genocide a few days after the war started and I think it is wonderful that someone finally tries to discuss why they might consider it a genocide. It is interesting that somebody may use the word genocide without thinking of killing. Words migrate in meaning and I've always heard it used with mass killings. The word genocide has a significant trace of death. The whole Gaza war has been a surprise to me how it has been reported and discussed. The bombing of a hospital was proved to be a bombing of a parking lot by Hamas. The hospitals never ran out of the fuel and medicine that the news was so concerned by. The pits filled with corpses was filmed that Hamas did it before Israel came. And the amount of food going into Gaza from Israel has been proven to not be causing a famine. It is the movement of the food to the people that cause the problem. You can even watch the videos of Hamas stealing from the supply convoys. I am surprised that no matter how much can be shown, when people want to believe something, their minds can do everything to deny the physical proof. And why would the Israelis want to starve Palestinian children? You could just as easily carpet bomb the refugee camp if you want to kill. Not that I am suggesting it. Sure there are supply chain problems in a war--but maybe some Hamas media manipulation also. I do commend Carneades for taking on this difficult topic and attempting to look at it from both sides.

I wanted to note a couple of areas where it looks to me like you’ve confused the definition of genocide. In some places you seem to be conflating the actus reus and mens rea required for genocide. Committing an act of genocide, especially the imposition of conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of the group, is only genocide if accompanied by the specific intent to accomplish the biological annihilation of the group. So it wouldn’t be accurate to say that the UN definition incorporates Lemkin’s original understanding of the term because it explicitly excludes cultural genocide. The appellate division of the ICTY recognized this in its ruling on the Srebrenica case: “[C]ustomary international law limits the definition of genocide to those acts seeking the physical or biological destruction of all or part of the group. [A]n enterprise attacking only the cultural or sociological characteristics of a human group in order to annihilate these elements which give to that group its own identity distinct from the rest of the community would not fall under the definition of genocide.” So the conditions of life calculated to *destroy* must be calculated to biologically destroy a “part” of the group. What is “part” in this context? The court defined it in the Srebrenica case as “the alleged perpetrator intended to destroy at least a substantial part of the protected group. The determination of when the targeted part is substantial enough to meet this requirement may involve a number of considerations. The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall size of the entire group. In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration. If a specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4.” So, to sum up, you’d need to show that the genocidal act (deportation, forcible transfer of children, etc) aimed at the physical destruction of at least enough of the group to endanger its survival as such. So for instance, the deportation of the Rohingya in Myanmar is an act of genocide only if the perpetrators are attempting thereby to physically annihilate the protected group. Merely scattering or displacing them is not enough. With regard to the First Arab-Israeli War/ the “Nakba”, this requirement makes clear that the actions of Jewish groups were not genocide. Removing a people from a place, even by violence, is not genocide unless the intent is to physically destroy them. Here you’ve conflated ethnic cleansing and genocide. There’s an additional question about whether this was a state policy or the acts of individual commanders. So it’s not even entirely clear that the requisite mental state existed for criminal responsibility. You also neglected to mention that the Arab armies attacked first - a fairly important point. We can argue about whether this bar is too high but nevertheless it is the bar. Viz a viz Israel and Hamas, it seems clear that Hamas intended the physical annihilation of as many Jewish Israelis as possible. Their complete destruction wasn’t possible but, again, from the Srebrenica appeal: “The historical examples of genocide also suggest that the area of the perpetrators’ activity and control, as well as the possible extent of their reach, should be considered. Nazi Germany may have intended only to eliminate Jews within Europe alone; that ambition probably did not extend, even at the height of its power, to an undertaking of that enterprise on a global scale. Similarly, the perpetrators of genocide in Rwanda did not seriously contemplate the elimination of the Tutsi population beyond the country’s borders. The intent to destroy formed by a perpetrator of genocide will always be limited by the opportunity presented to him. While this factor alone will not indicate whether the targeted group is substantial, it can - in combination with other factors - inform the analysis.” So, Hamas’ intent to physically annihilate Jewish Israeli communities on the border with Gaza constitutes genocidal intent once we define the relevant geographic area as their effective zone of control during the killings and establish their purpose to physically annihilate the protected group within it. From public statements, military plans and acts on the day, this seems almost impossible to dispute. Israel’s actions in Gaza, however, are far more complicated because they happened in the context of an armed conflict where multiple motives may have been at play. I’m aware of no international case law parsing multiple motives in the genocide context. Very few such cases have gone to trial for obvious reasons. But we may doubt that Israeli leaders formed the requisite intent based upon the simple observation that the killings stopped once they established military control. Unlike Hamas, the IDF didn’t round up Palestinian civilians and shoot them in the streets once military resistance ended. The most plausible case for genocide would be the bombing campaign and the possibility that it intended the annihilation of Gazans “in part.” But it would be a strange genocide indeed where the perpetrator intended the annihilation of substantial numbers of the protected group, risked international condemnation to kill then from the air, but then stopped short of killing them on the ground. What’s more reasonable to infer is that Israeli leaders intended the destruction of Hamas (a political, unprotected group) and recklessly disregarded the impact on civilians. This may be morally reprehensible in a variety of ways but it isn’t specific intent.

DISCLAIMER: I only watched the last 10 minutes Seems to make little sense that Hamas attacks could constitute a "counter genocide". Surely the power imbalance creates an asymmetry in how the definition is applied? Also not sure how fair calling Al Aqsa flood an attack on civilians is. Firstly the argument could be made that settlers aren't civilians. But even assuming that they are its become pretty clear now that it was a military expedition that went haywire with many random people joining in on the violence. Also, the allegations of sexual violence haven't been substantiated even a bit. You should have mentioned this. Overall this just seems like a forced both sides bad take that no one would ever believe regarding South Africa now. That one side is backed by the strongest global empire and the other is literally occupied by them, the idea that this opressed side could commit a genocide on their opressors is just silly. If going from no rights to rights means making Israel unlivable then how can this be considered genocidal? The more i think the more this makes no sense. And if our theory of genocide doesnt account for this power imbalance then its useless.

Everyone asks "what is genocide" but no one asks "HOW is genocide" 😔

Fact check: The first genocide you said israel has made, the nakbah, began when Arab nations like Syria, Iraq Jorden, Egypt, including the Palestinians, rejected the UN 2 states' proposal and declared a war, from all sides, on israel. Indeed israel has occupied land, but this is not genocide. For the claim that israel is doing genocide in the current war with hamas, I will ask this: israel has 20% Arabs citizens which more then 90% of them define them selves as Palestinians also for all the plastianias in the west bank israel is doing nothing of thrthings you mentioned that israel is doing in this the current war which considers as acts of genocide. so is israel doing a genocide on Palestinians? Indeed there is a terrible war in Gaza, also innocent people are dieing . but if you accept the idea that a group of people can defend them selves and fight against other group, which addressing most of there resources to eliminate the first group, then ask your self how can it be done in the Gaza war if hamas use civil facilities as military bases, because they are civil facilities. please chek the bases that were located in under hospitals, schools and un facilities. one last thing: israel has never ever targeted workers of humanitarian organizations. but Indeed 2 things has happened, the first I's that the Idf has mistakenly killed people from humanitarian organizations in 2 tragic accidents during the war. the second, which acciur many times, israel has tagelty killed terrorist which also worked in Un organization like unra. there are many videos of unra workers which fought with hamas, and as hamas fighters in October 7th. you can check everything I noted here.

I liked this video even though the topic is dismal. But, that often is the case with the world and we need to talk about it I am going to discuss intent in regards to being sufficient and/or necessary for genocide. Sufficient - if the extermination of a people is called for, but there is no plan to enact the extermination, is that genocide or does a plan need to accompany intent? What if the person calling for extermination has enough public sway that the extermination might be enacted by their followers even if they did not specify a plan? Sometimes these lines are not easy to draw. Necessary - When a government enacts socialism, causing mass starvation is that genocide even if their foolish intent was to create some type of utopia? Often starvation disproportionally some groups more than others. Right now, Milei is attempting to move Argentina into a more free market economy. While this should work in the long run, he did warn that things would get worse during the transition. Again, these lines are hard to draw.

I think the original definition by Lemkin is better than the legalistic one adopted by the UN. The focus on culture is very important, and whilst mass murder of members of a cultural group is certainly a way to get it done, it's certainly not the only way. Race, nationality, religion, and politics are all potential factors in culture, and as such they are relevent insofar as they are cultural distinctions. A racial/national/religious/political group may be targeted due to its links to a culture. But culture isn't perfectly linked to those things, for instance many people who have stopped believing in a religion they have been part of for a significant part of their life choose to maintain cultural elements from that religion despite not believing anymore, and they may even pass those cultural traditions down to their children. And in general it's important to make a distinction between the culture and whatever it's linked to. Things like abusing children, discrimination/marginalisation/persecution/mistreatment/abuse if marginalised people, and power structures are not cultural elements, so taking meadures to prevent those or protect against them isn't genocidal. But things such as banning people from wearing certain clothing that has cultural significance is a way to commit genocide without ever attempting to cause the death of anyone.

I strongly disagree. I usually think your videos are of really good quality, but here, after building almost an hour to the main point, you don’t actually justify anything. I don’t think you can establish intent by using 3 random quotes. There is no indiscriminate bombing, otherwise the ratio of civilian to hamas casualties would not be 4:1 - 8:1, it would be way higher. This is a horrific conflict that needs to stop, and I don’t claim the IDF is acting perfectly, but this is almost to be expected in a highly urban conflict where one party deliberately hides amongst the civilian population. This is horrible and must stop. But if this war is a genocide, every war is.

Only racial, and NOT cultural, religious, political, or even national g enocides is immoral. As only race is immutable and carries no judgement on a person beliefs. You can create a nation, let’s make one up called “palestine” that stands for the oppression of women, if you choose to align yourself with such a place I don’t see a problem with your neighbor destroying your home and replacing your country with one that has better policies. The same is true for culture, I hate my culture because it is barbaric so I reject it, anyone else can do the same.

This needs to be taught in Israeli schools

Another answer: Palestinian