03 Aug 20
@philokalia saidYour "general idea" lacks substance and application. It's like a kind of nebulous disapproval of people with different moral perspectives from you.
I think you would actually derail discussion about the general idea through examples
03 Aug 20
@fmf saidI am glad that you brought this up because this is actually a great criticism of both the left and the right.
I think you are worried that the examples you would give would portray you as a partisan misanthrope who likes to keep his disdain for people oriented towards humanitarianism vague and plausibly deniable when necessary.
Is it the left wing along who invokes humanity? No.
Is it the right wing alone who invokes humanity? No.
The right will say that the Chavezistas of Venezuela or the Iranian Mullahs are enemies of freedom -- and as they believe man has a human right to liberty, this is dehumanizing and consenting to violence towards these people, usually.
The left does the same towards their domestic enemies in particular -- the Proud Boys, the "Alt Right," and other right wing groups. Because they are bigots, and are portrayed as being fundamentally against people of other variety existing, they dehumanize their political opponents.
03 Aug 20
@philokalia saidSo "dehumanization" involves "consenting to violence" against certain targeted groups and things like that? But thinking/saying someone is, say, a bigot or misogynist or racist is somehow ALSO "dehumanizing" them?
I am glad that you brought this up because this is actually a great criticism of both the left and the right.
Is it the left wing along who invokes humanity? No.
Is it the right wing alone who invokes humanity? No.
The right will say that the Chavezistas of Venezuela or the Iranian Mullahs are enemies of freedom -- and as they believe man has a human right to lib ...[text shortened]... g fundamentally against people of other variety existing, they dehumanize their political opponents.
03 Aug 20
@philokalia saidSome people are "fundamentally against people [like you] existing"?
The left does the same towards their domestic enemies in particular -- the Proud Boys, the "Alt Right," and other right wing groups. Because they are bigots, and are portrayed as being fundamentally against people of other variety existing, they dehumanize their political opponents.
"The left" believes this about you?
04 Aug 20
@fmf saidI guess if I had to draw a line, I would say that you have dehumanized someone when
So "dehumanization" involves "consenting to violence" against certain targeted groups and things like that? But thinking/saying someone is, say, a bigot or misogynist or racist is somehow ALSO "dehumanizing" them?
"deprive [them] of human qualities such as individuality, compassion, or civility"
If you matter of factly say that
"X is racist; because you believe in X, you are a racist," you have not dehumanized them, but are advancing a point about how you believe reality is.
You dehumanize them when you treat someone who fits that description as an enemy of humanity, and as someone who does not deserve civility, compassion, or being treated as individuals.
In the end, this often leads to assenting to violence towards them, either actively, or passively (well I don't care if X beat them up -- they deserve it).
04 Aug 20
@philokalia saidWhen you say "deprive them of human qualities", you actually mean criticize them, disagree with them, oppose them?
I guess if I had to draw a line, I would say that you have dehumanized someone when "deprive [them] of human qualities such as individuality, compassion, or civility"
04 Aug 20
@philokalia saidAgain, when you say "that someone" as "an enemy of humanity" you are referring to criticizing them, disagreeing with them, opposing them, condemning what they do or think, right?
You dehumanize them when you treat someone who fits that description as an enemy of humanity, and as someone who does not deserve civility, compassion, or being treated as individuals.
04 Aug 20
@philokalia saidSo, because criticizing someone, disagreeing with them, opposing them, condemning them "often leads to assenting to violence towards them", then such criticism of them is "dehumanization"? This is what you are on about?
In the end, this often leads to assenting to violence towards them, either actively, or passively (well I don't care if X beat them up -- they deserve it).
04 Aug 20
If criticism and disapproval of those disagreed with - or opposed - gets people accused of "dehumanizing" their "domestic enemies" by self-described "internet nobodies" like you [egged on, apparently, by "important men" like Carl Schmitt], then it sounds like your rhetoric is designed to smear dissenters and inhibit debate.
'Hell yeah, let's accuse them of being dehumanizers in retaliation for saying something mean to me about my views!'
Is this not you being a kind of "snowflake" [at least in so far as how you described to me what that word means when you use it]?
@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. If you think this first sentence adds spin, just frame it how you want.
Is it the left wing along who invokes humanity? No.
Is it the right wing alone who invokes humanity? No.
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 really mean by that word.
I am not so interested in the politics of it, as such. I am more interested in empathy, moral principles, and the notion of dehumanization.
04 Aug 20
@fmf saidNo, I don't.
When you say "deprive them of human qualities", you actually mean criticize them, disagree with them, oppose them?
So I think that you will have to rethink this entire series of posts you made.
04 Aug 20
@philokalia said@fmf said
No, I don't.
When you say "deprive them of human qualities", you actually mean criticize them, disagree with them, oppose them?
@philokalia said
No, I don't.
So what? You mean the truncation of their human rights? Violence against them?
04 Aug 20
@philokalia saidI think I am bang on target. Are you simply going to dodge them?
So I think that you will have to rethink this entire series of posts you made.
04 Aug 20
@fmf saidIs talking to you in this way an example of you being "dehumanized"?
If criticism and disapproval of those disagreed with - or opposed - gets people accused of "dehumanizing" their "domestic enemies" by self-described "internet nobodies" like you [egged on, apparently, by "important men" like Carl Schmitt], then it sounds like your rhetoric is designed to smear dissenters and inhibit debate. 'Hell yeah, let's accuse them of being dehumanizers in r ...[text shortened]... of "snowflake" [at least in so far as how you described to me what that word means when you use it]?
04 Aug 20
@fmf said"Hey guy, I want to debate you... Now, write an essay for me on the topic of my choice."
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. If you think this first sentence adds spin, just frame it how you want.
Speculate on the degree of empathy that the parties involved are exhibiting [to your way of thinking], what p ...[text shortened]... of it, as such. I am more interested in empathy, moral principles, and the notion of dehumanization.
That isn't how this works.