You also downvoted multiple posts discussing the Uyghur genocide, and that were about, exclusively, criticism of the Uyghur genocide.

I genuinely do not remember doing this, but i apologize.

Either you're bullshitting now, or you weren't reading anything you were voting on then; just, I don't know, giving up and downvotes according to who was being responded to, I guess?

I do vote irresponsibly and occasionally vote things that i go back to later and go "why the fuck did i upvote/downvote this?" I've been called out for this before too and i want to be more careful with voting in the future.

I guess you don't know much about the Holodomor either, considering you and the rest of the admins left that lovely bit of denialism up as well.

I literally said that in my comment. "I know nothing about Holodomor or Xinjiang, nothing at all"

If calling you out for being part of a fucking moderation team that removes one form of genocide denial, but 'conveniently' seems to ignore every major form of tankie genocide denialism is malicious

Dude, I know about zionism + the Gaza genocide, that's something i can confidently act upon. I literally told you i know nothing about what's going on in Xinjiang / what happened in Holodomor.

what the fuck do your actions come off as? Benevolent?

Besides the voting which in retrospect was wrong, literally what actions; i haven't removed a single comment or post in this situation.

The fact that you're being downvoted for your comment after walking it back can probably be turned into a statement about the human psyche, but I'm not creative enough to make it.

The definition of genocide by the UN convention:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

If the target is to destroy a group as a group and any of these acts are committed, it is genocide. Mass murder is the "prevalent" act, but it is not a requirement for genocide.

Hardly

Suppressing a culture destroys that culture. If people cannot express their culture, it will eventually die out as the people become assimilated into the culture of the empire that is supressing it. That's what makes it genocide. You kill off a culture even without needing to kill actual humans. (Which is to say nothing of the forced sterilisation, which is a far more direct form of genocide.)

That's a much narrower definition than the UN uses, which is what matters in terms of international law. In particular, the intent doesn't have to be to totally destroy the group, so suppressing its numbers still counts. It's a semantic argument, but for a word so loaded as genocide, letting people dodge accusations by picking a different word isn't helpful. Obviously, this one isn't the most serious genocide going on right now, as there are Israeli cabinate ministers explicitly saying it's their goal to kill all Palestinians, but that's not a great defence for crimes against humanity.

You're whining about being called a tankie and banned, while repeating tankies talking points.