The reason it’s become a ‘litmus test’ is because we generally agree in the modern day that genocide is bad.

No, the litmus test is whether you call something a genocide, even if it doesn't meet the definition.

A proper argument:

1. defines genocide
2. shows evidence that an event matches the definition from 1
3. shows evidence where it doesn't match the definition from 1, with an explanation why it still meets the criteria

But instead, what we get is something that vaguely resembles genocide if taken out of context because normal people hate genocide and will likely not look too closely into the details if they don't like the group that's being accused.

For example, is the current focus on deportation from the US a genocide? Most reasonable people would say no, but if you dislike the US enough, you could be convinced that it is.

From what I've read of the Uyghur situation, it's close enough, but perhaps "forced assimilation" or even "cultural genocide" is more appropriate. It's difficult to know the full extent given how tightly the CCP controls information, so maybe it qualities for the UN definition of genocide.

But pretty much every discussion online gets shut down if someone fails the litmus test. I get that a lot of people aren't arguing in good faith, but it's important to remember that it goes both ways.

Sure, it's a big scale in most contexts, but not in the way that I mean here. It's not big enough to cause the extermination of the group in question. Which is what matters in terms of whether it is genocide. It is certainly ethnic cleansing, human rights violations, mass murder, concentration camps, I think all of these labels fit. But genocide is the most abhorrent crime imaginable and it requests a similarly extreme level of violence. If events continues to worsen in severity, then it could qualify in the future certainly. I'm not sure what that trend line looks like.

The atrocities done to the Native Americans constituted genocide because they were widely exterminated. Their populations increased mainly after the genocide, so I don't see that example as too relevant.

Regarding Palestine, earlier in the conflict I think it was a bit more ambiguous but with the starvation campaign and the dwindling list of excuses to continue bombing, combined with open statements of genocidal intent by members of the ruling coalition, it's hard to argue against at this point. Still, I think it being an active and ongoing event and the belligerent having an active propaganda campaign and blocking independent fact-finding on the ground, I would not condemn apologia as harshly as, say, the holocaust, where the facts have been well-understood for decades now.

If I felt they were deliberately using different words to obfuscate the severity of the situation then maybe, so I see your point. But I don't think that applies here since the facts don't match the definition. But no matter where we want to draw the line or define these concepts, there is always going to be a gray area, and there needs to be a level of discussion allowed around that. And I feel like this debate has become so toxic that this is no longer possible.

So, I would only use the term apologia when someone's statements greatly and obviously diverge from the known facts. Certainly there are plenty of people who have engaged in such on this topic on .ml, but I don't agree it's fair to level this accusation at the users in question here.