>>60485393
>forced relocation is not ethnic cleansing
Anon.. the UN Convention on Genocide and the Rome Statute explicitly define forced relocation of a population as ethnic cleansing. This isn't my opinion - it's international law.
>rationalism and predictive models, including game theory and stochastic ml, appear to be currently the best known approach to decide what may or may not be existential
Game theory also predicted mutual assured destruction would prevent nuclear war. Should we trust algorithms to decide which populations get to stay in their homes?
You're essentially saying "my computer models justify ethnic cleansing." That's not rationalism - that's hiding behind math to avoid moral responsibility.
>abstraction mitigates moral or cultural entitlement which is desirable in this context
Translation: "If I use enough abstract language, I don't have to feel bad about supporting ethnic cleansing."
The Holocaust was very abstract to the bureaucrats planning train schedules. The Rwandan genocide was abstract to radio broadcasters. Abstraction is how people convince themselves atrocities are acceptable.
>i will not answer inappropriately reductive yes or no question
These aren't reductive questions. "Should people be forced from their homes" has a clear moral answer. Your refusal to answer clearly IS your answer.
>neurotypical standardization is not simplicity
I'm not asking you to be neurotypical. I'm asking you to stop using complexity as camouflage for ethnic cleansing.
Your "simple and clear" writing called forced relocation "free housing somewhere." Even you know that's not what it really is, or you wouldn't need all these paragraphs to defend it.