You know what's your problem is? You have habit of assuming things based on your understanding, knowledge or experiences and then brush aside other people's opinion by saying " you don't know" or "I am talking from scientific lens"
Your knowledge is incomplete. Your perspectives are shallow and often one sided.
Identification amplifies empathy but it's not the sole source of empathy. One can show empathy without identification.
And, Genocides goes beyond identification as well. It's a systematic abuse, manipulation and politically engineered act
Infact, over - identification with one group might lead to hostility towards other groups thus can also become seed of genocides.
My knowledge and understanding is indeed incomplete. I acknowledge this defect, but it doesn't necessarily means that I'm wrong.
Identification amplifies empathy but it's not the sole source of empathy. One can show empathy without identification.
Ok, give me exemple please.
And, Genocides goes beyond identification as well. It's a systematic abuse, manipulation and politically engineered act
Indeed you are right. That's why I precised that the lack of identification was just "
one of the reasons". In reality, the lack of identification that creates a genocide is the result of a domination and exploitation system and a cosmic contradictions between two opposing material interests, a subjegated and a dominant. A structural and systemic problem.
Infact, over - identification with one group might lead to hostility towards other groups thus can also become seed of genocides.
For exemple ?
it is watering it down/oversimplifying to say behaviors that lead to genocide such as in Palestine are merely due to material phenomenon
That's actually a complexification.
Extending the vision of this conflict to a reading between an oppressive force with colonial interests and a population who needs to survive and not being ejected from their own land is allowing us to understand clearly the relationship of domination at place.
To be more accurate, he has his own subjective opinions but tries his hardest to make it seem like what he says is actually rooted in objective truth, ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
Guy A- are you a OP fan?
Guy B- yes
Guy A- do like Luffy as a character?
Guy B- Nope
Guy A- then you cant be a OP fan since Luffy is the core of the series
Que a bunch of anti-intellectual roundabouts to justify such a conclusion.
That's what we call.. a strawman. Usually the conversation goes like this:
Guy A - Trash OP on multiple threads because of denied illegitimate expectation and bad material condition of interaction with the story
Me - You are wrong, you trash OP because you have illegitimate expectation and bad material condition of interaction witht the story