Had a contentious conversation today with a friend where I was saying "genocide" is a word with no real meaning, only a political one, used to justify an internvetion when the powers that be decide one is necessary. She stuck to her point that "genocide" is a real concept and matters to her. I was so locked into my point that I wasn't able to really listen to what she was saying. She was drawing a clear distinction between the holocaust and the civil war. In the first, intervention was morally necessary (I'm taking a leap from what she actually said, but I'm trying to understand where she might've gone had I listened long enough to let her) while in the second, there was no genocide and thus no need for anyone else to get involved. Is it possible that she and I weren't holding opposing ideas?