Not as bad as the "great replacement", but still pretty vague in consideration that it was a hundred
and sixteen years, an intermittent conflict, frequently interrupted by external factors, and several years of truces. None of which reality the popular phrase managed to convey, did it?
Also fails conveys much of the exigent reality, such as the almost two years long "Reign of Terror"? And also observing the term "revolution" itself was challengeable, the same way as "replacement". - Consider say the likes of Immanuel Kant himself saying that there was no real "revolution" understood as an unlawful and violent toppling of the old regime.
Yes, well you might apply an endless range of phrases, loaded like yours, or not.
But I'd say you probably need
a few paragraphs to get across what it is we might be really talking about, and the most apposite significance of the word "replacement".
A good example would be taking a few paragraphs from
@Hermit's link above, we see that is using the word "replacement" in connection with the problem of aging European populations and their economic supports.
"... the lower the levels of fertility decline, the more pronounced will be the ageing of the population of the country. One of the major consequences of population ageing is the reduction in the ratio between the population in working-age group 15-64 years and the population 65 years or older, or the potential support ratio (PSR). Everything else being equal, a lower potential support ratio means that it is much more onerous for the working-age population to support the needs of the older retired population...
... The consequences of significant population decline and population ageing are not well understood as they are new demographic experiences for countries. Keeping retirement and health-care systems for older persons solvent in the face of declining and ageing populations, for example, constitutes a new situation that poses serious challenges for Governments and civil society. Finally, the new challenges being brought about by declining and ageing populations will require objective, thorough and comprehensive reassessments of many established economic, social and political policies and programmes. Such reassessments will need to incorporate a long-term perspective.
Critical issues to be addressed in those reassessments would include (a) appropriate ages for retirement; (b) levels, types and nature of retirement and health-care benefits for the elderly; (c) labour-force participation; (d) assessed amounts of contributions from workers and employers needed to support retirement and healthcare benefits for the increasing elderly population; and (e) policies and programmes relating to international migration, in particular replacement migration, and the integration of large numbers of recent migrants and their descendants..."
Most people wouldn't say "bold", they would say that is mindless and indeed stupid sensationalism beyond all bounds of sense and reason.
So for example, take the sensationalism of your term "genocide" above, and its appeal to emotion, its populist appeal to peoples' sense of victimhood.
Observe how it succeeds in earning "replacement theory" the sobriquet of being a conspiracy theory (just one case).
For isn't the concept of genocide, and in this case, we do actually have formal definitions in international law, not just crap written in white supremacist online glossaries; isn't it defined as not only an action, but as
an intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
But who are you saying has this "intent"? And on what basis?
And that in a nutshell is why most people observe, and say, hey, look, these clowns spouting this "replacement theory" also have a conspiracist mindset, see, pretty much all of them. They all seem to be implying this undertone, this agenda.
So no confusion there that I can see.