I feel like you had additional context to this question that you meant to add, but just totally forgot.
As it stands, yes of course. If your house in condemned or otherwise subject to eminent domain, if your house is seized to pay creditors for non-mortgage debt (in some states), if somebody else has superior title to your home and you aren’t protected by being a bonafide purchaser, etc.
At least when I shit my pants after drinking milk, it’s because I’m a baby, not lack toes in toll Iran.
Ah, apologies for the misread, and moreover for incorrectly ascribing a statement to you.
That said, it’s not really relevant to the main point - namely the definitions there do not appear to have a settler exception. Whether those are fair or accurate definitions is of course another question entirely…
I think this is an interesting question of the overlap of meaning and rhetoric.
Here’s Wikipedia on ethnic cleansing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing . The definition does not take into account the “settler” status. Indeed, it specifically lists your German example as ethnic cleansing.
The definitions the un has used in certain reports can be found here https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/ethnic-cleansing.shtml. Again, settler status is not some exception to the definition.
The “magic law” is just the consequence of what it means to be the “same” person. To be the same person, you have to, among other similarities, take up the same spatial-temporal space. This is why if we ask “is Bruce Wayne the same person as Batman” one of the first thoughts is “you know, I’ve never seen them in the same room before.”
Maybe what you’re getting hung up on here is the split. Let’s imagine there is one river (river A) which goes for a bit before it forks and becomes river b and river c. In some sense, we could say that both river b and river c are river a. But if you’re river b, then river c is not the same as you, and vice versa.
God the insanity of that wealth is hard to fathom.
Nobody needs $100m, which is itself a totally insignificant amount compared to $1b… and we’re talking people with hundreds of billions :/
Holy shit they banned Maus? That’s nuts.
Me petting a cow: “wow haha, it’s almost like I’m touching a giant squishy eyeball.”
Cow: “I am just a normal cow.”
Me: “you are just a normal cow.”
Cow: “good, now walk away and tell nobody this happened.”
So cooky, those cows!
Now replace the ground level street with a park
Fair enough. And sorry, didn’t mean any offense - I just read the “extremely skeptical” as the strongest statement in the thread.
Why? I’m asking this seriously and don’t intend for this to be an attack - but do you have some reason to believe this other than standard marxist-doomerism?
Since Abruzzo’s appointment, the nlrb has made many pro-labor findings, including against behemoths such as Amazon and Starbucks, for example. One of my friends who is an nlrb attorney was also pretty pumped about it (though he of course has his own biases). And I think the nlrb going through all the effort to revive a what - 50 year old doctrine - (in addition to revive a 2014 rule regarding quick elections) gives a lot to be hopeful toward.
I’m not sure there’s a person who really believes both of these. I think people who believe premise one actually believe this to be a generally true statement about people (or a generally true statement about some racial subset of people) rather than a statement about all people. This dovetails nicely with their love of billionaires due to them being “hard workers” because it shows the billionaire is somewhat unique and better than most people in that regard.