@fmf saidI was correct because the main idea was not that humanitarianism divides people, but that invoking humanity divides people.
But you said "I did not say humanitarianism" when, in fact, you had. What you claim was or wasn't "the focal point" is neither here nor there.
But I can see how you would become confused. They're similar words and, yes, I did mention humanity and humanitarianism later. If you thought that they had the same meaning, or that I was being sloppy, I understand.
But this is not the main point of the thread and I do not think it would be interesting to dwell on your mistake any longer.
@philokalia saidSee if you can come up with a hypothetical scenario based on the separation of families at your southern border and the detention of people in cages and children being separated from their parents.
do you honestly need an example to understand this?
Frame it how you want.
Speculate on the degree of empathy that the parties involved are exhibiting [to your way of thinking], what perspectives are and are not the result of "misguided empathy", the role of orientation towards "humanity and humanitarianism" that the parties involved might have had.
The parties involved? Government officials and policymakers, agents implementing the policy, the migrants themselves, that is the parents and the children, local residents, and opponents and critics of the policy.
And then carefully deploy the word "dehumanization" in your telling of it in order that one can get an idea of what you mean by that word.
I am not so interested in the politics of it per see. I am more interested in empathy, moral principles, and the notion of dehumanization.
@fmf saidI think needing an example of invoking humanity and therefore dehumanizing others is quite self-explanatory.
I think your notion about "dehumanization" might be hyperbole and partisan rancour of an utterly ludicrous kind. But you are being secretive and defensive about giving examples of what you mean.
You initially wanted personal examples -- and now just examples in general. But that makes less sense to me because it's an obvious idea.
@fmf saidOh, so you have an idea about this. I'm sure you don't need me to write an essay for you.
See if you can come up with a hypothetical scenario based on the separation of families at your southern border and the detention of people in cages and children being separated from their parents.
Frame it how you want.
Speculate on the degree of empathy that the parties involved are exhibiting [to your way of thinking], what perspectives are and are not the result of "m ...[text shortened]... role of orientation towards "humanity and humanitarianism" that the parties involved might have had.
Tell us more.
@philokalia saidI have been asking for both.
You initially wanted personal examples -- and now just examples in general.
@philokalia saidIf you don't want to take the challenge, feel free not to.
Oh, so you have an idea about this. I'm sure you don't need me to write an essay for you.
Tell us more.
I am simply looking for some substantiation of your use of the word "dehumanization".
@philokalia saidLater?
But I can see how you would become confused. They're similar words and, yes, I did mention humanity and humanitarianism later.
This is what you said, and it was on page 1, here it is verbatim:
"The first person who invokes humanity & humanitarianism is often the first person to dehumanize someone else."
There is no confusion at all. When you said you had not used the word "humanitarianism" you were not telling then truth. And the way you are squirming now is not something that smacks of honesty either.
@philokalia saidHere is the full quote from the first page for anyone curious
People who begin to fight on behalf of "humanity" or any other nebulous value paint their opposition as cruel on a very fundamental level, and therefore worthy of cruelty, as it is actually very rare to meet a true pacifist.
The first person who invokes humanity & humanitarianism is often the first person to dehumanize someone else.
Here's an excellent excerpt from Carl Schmitt on this.
Already posted, of course, but it's good to remind people what you're all about
“Humanity as such and as a whole has no enemies. Everyone belongs to humanity…“Humanity” thus becomes an asymmetrical counter-concept. If he discriminates within humanity and thereby denies the quality of being human to a disturber or destroyer, then the negatively valued person becomes an unperson, and his life is no longer of the highest value: it becomes worthless and must be destroyed. Concepts such as “human being” thus contain the possibility of the deepest inequality and become thereby “asymmetrical.”“
Schmitt was laegely even referencing the general order of things now.
Here's another quote.
"For the application of such means, a new and essentially pacifist vocabulary has been created. War is condemned but executions, sanctions, punitive expeditions, pacifications, protection of treaties, international police, and measures to assure peace remain. The adversary is thus no longer called an enemy but a disturber of peace and is thereby designated to be an outlaw of humanity. A war waged to protect or expand economic power must, with the aid of propaganda, turn into a crusade and into the last war of humanity. This is implicit in the polarity of ethics and economics, a polarity astonishingly systematic and consistent. But this allegedly non-political and apparently even antipolitical system serves existing or newly emerging friend-and-enemy groupings and cannot escape the logic of the political."
Whena broad concept of the good is created, it ends up being used to other others.
OK, retreat behind copy-pastes from somewhere/someone or other if you feel you need to. If you feel Carl Schmitt somehow gives you rinsed-out, self-serving definitions of words like "enemy" and "dehumanization" that you then feel you can toss around in a rather silly censorious way, so be it.
With your very first post on page 1 you said this: "The first person who invokes humanity & humanitarianism is often the first person to dehumanize someone else."
Here we are on page 5 and you are still refusing to give any personal and/or real-life/real-world example of what the words "to dehumanize someone else" means when you use them.
[Instead, you are spamming up our conversation with copy-pasted texts.]
Do you have any such examples? If you want to let Carl Schmitt inspire you or motivate you to offer something, anything, then so be it.
@philokalia saidAnd there is the word "humanitarianism". You did use it, see? I cannot fathom what benefit you thought you were going to gain from lying about it.
Here is the full quote from the first page for anyone curious
@philokalia saidThe texts you have copy-pasted don't include the word "dehumanize" or any of its derivatives.
Here's an excellent excerpt from Carl Schmitt on this.
I am asking you about this thing that you said: "The first person who invokes humanity & humanitarianism is often the first person to dehumanize someone else."
If, somehow, you are saying that Carl Schmitt has prompted you to say what you said, fine, whatever, but I am asking you to take full responsibility for what you have asserted by offering examples.
It would seem to me you are using the word "dehumanization" in such a ridiculous catch-all kind of way, no amount of Appeal to Authority is going to make sense of it,
@philokalia saidLet's have some practical examples anyway. Have a go at the 'Southern Border Scenario' I set up further up this page.
I think needing an example of invoking humanity and therefore dehumanizing others is quite self-explanatory.
@fmf saidThe copy & pasted quotation is has within it a good example:
OK, retreat behind copy-pastes from somewhere/someone or other if you feel you need to. If you feel Carl Schmitt somehow gives you rinsed-out, self-serving definitions of words like "enemy" and "dehumanization" that you then feel you can toss around in a rather silly censorious way, so be it.
With your very first post on page 1 you said this: "The first person who invokes huma ...[text shortened]... ou want to let Carl Schmitt inspire you or motivate you to offer something, anything, then so be it.
"For the application of such means, a new and essentially pacifist vocabulary has been created. War is condemned but executions, sanctions, punitive expeditions, pacifications, protection of treaties, international police, and measures to assure peace remain. The adversary is thus no longer called an enemy but a disturber of peace and is thereby designated to be an outlaw of humanity. A war waged to protect or expand economic power must, with the aid of propaganda, turn into a crusade and into the last war of humanity. This is implicit in the polarity of ethics and economics, a polarity astonishingly systematic and consistent. But this allegedly non-political and apparently even antipolitical system serves existing or newly emerging friend-and-enemy groupings and cannot escape the logic of the political."
Anyone who is labeled and portrayed in these terms ends up becoming worst than the classic idea of an enemy -- they are [i]an outlaw of humanity.[/i[]
This is because people now think in such universalized ways -- there is an idea of "human rights" that has been universalized and effectively is employed to make some people enemies/outlaws of humanity because they do not respect "human rights."
This is the act of dehumanization and outlawing of people, which can lead to a sort of conflict far more extreme than the conflicts of previous generations. Hence the great killings that we saw throughout the 20th century.
This is what has been being communicated quite simply from the start.
There is no need for a specific example when such an idea is generally familiar.