If your so-called empathy is based upon ideological principles then it's not empathy, it's sympathy and it bides within alienation. It's not a connection to the unique, but a submission to an ideal.
That's dehumanization, which is an effect of moralistic judgement. I completely disagree with you since static images of ideological boundary do not define individuals, only mask them.
-
-
Domination systems require: 1.Suppression of self 2.Moralistic judgments 3.Amtssprache ( an expression used by Nazi officials to describe a bureaucratic language that denies choice, with words like: “should,” “have to,” “ought.”) 4.The crucial concept of deserve -M. Rosenberg
-
Those are necessary not sufficient. And there’s nothing inconsistent about being anti-retributivism and also still anti-fascist, and, in fact, i’ve written even on here several threads on the subject.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
First of all, individuals only exist as the outcome of social processes. We can ascribe an ethical value to this individuation—and I do—but it’s not a given thing. Second, pointing out that a person current ideology is danger & vile isn’t dehumanizing lmao.
-
Also there’s good research on how to make people NOT be that ideology anymore. And guess what empathy isn’t the way. So even if I conceded your staticness rebuttal, it’d still be non sequitur, bc eliciting that dynamism requires a different modality entirely.
-
I don't believe that. I've read a few papers on conflict resolution and have engaged in conflict resolution myself and never once has a managerial approach lacking empathy ever worked to create any lasting change.
-
Conflict & abuse are different.
-
Abuse is a subset of conflict.
-
Agree to disagree.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.