I just posted the UN definition; it’s structured as a list of ORs combined with an AND, so any one element can be genocide provided the intent is there. There is no size/magnitude/scale requirement. Destruction of culture wasn’t on that list but we agreed it was a contributing factor earlier (well, you asked if I thought it could be and I said yes, so I assume you also think it can be).
Did you introduce “systematic” just now? I don’t think I or the definition mentioned it. I’m not sure it matters anyway. Any widespread pattern is systematic according to the left regardless of explicitly being included in laws or not (which I roughly agree with).
There is plenty of destruction of christian culture, the left, at least partially, rejoices in it; I used to. Why did I do that? because of my lefty views; just like I, at one stage, considered whether environmental terrorism was justified to save the planet or whatever. I’m sure most lefties would deny thinking about or supporting that, but lefty leaders happily keep up the messaging that inspires it. A recent example if you want one (there’s clips of it too) Belgian Radio Station Apologizes After Smashing Statues of Jesus, Blessed Mother| National Catholic Register. This kind of thing seems to be treated pretty casually on the left, and when I was a lefty I might have thought that kind of destruction was good.
In terms of systematic violence, the charlie kirk shooter was a product of lefty ideology and there are tonnes of lefties calling for violence every other day. That’s systematic / systemic by lefty standards (this kind of reasoning is part of the argument that patriarchy is systematic / systemic even if there are no laws being explicit about it).
The Annunciation Catholic Church shooting was a product of lefty ideology, among other things, too.
So, putting aside intuition about magnitude/scale, why shouldn’t these things be counted towards the criteria for genocide?