3 ms·

> Escalating racial and ethnic hate was lead up to war. That's exactly what I'd think. And historically I'd wager every well documented example shows it. And

> Escalating racial and ethnic hate was lead up to war. That's exactly what I'd think. And historically I'd wager every well documented example shows it. And yet Zizek gave that as a first hand account (that's where he is from please correct me if I am wrong), and it's an intriguing hypothesis. Certainly an unpopular one judging by my immediate down-vote for even mentioning it (as an open question no less) I don't think he was talking about "hate". He was talking about open acceptance of difference. That's what it seems is getting ever less permissible - and that's what I find concerning. Can we no longer make that distinction? Are we too timid to even discuss that? Is that what social media has done to us?

watwut 4y ago
In 90 ties is when the nationalist movements grew. Serbian nationalism became Army ideology. That won't happen woth political correctness. The other nationalities build own separatist movements. All of that involved a lot of talking. The run up to genocide was also not some kind of politically correct gentle talking period, not for everyone anyway. When a country with by your characterization full of edgy race insults eventually descend into genocides and crimes against humanity, maybe some intellectuals refusing to engage with race insults in the run up to genocide are not the cause. Maybe they are people who realized where this is going and did not wanted to contribute.