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.
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?
yeah let’s kill a group of people that is not a group of people
Just kill 50% at random. Perfectly balanced
Killing the rich wouldn’t be genocide.
that’s only because they aren’t a sufficiently large enough group of people
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.
We’ll kill everyone born at 1pm
yeah fuck those guys
Well you see that’s why the case must be made they are slightly less human.
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?
it depends how pedantic you are about the exact definition but I think (or hope) most people agree that would be genocide