3 ms·
Most of the time the two groups can just ignore each other. That's fine. The violence came from the fact that the offensively violent ideology (the "Destroy all
by OkayPhysicist 3y ago
Most of the time the two groups can just ignore each other. That's fine. The violence came from the fact that the offensively violent ideology (the "Destroy all other ethnic groups" one, to be clear) attacked people my ideology sees as being in our in-group (approximately everyone who's not trying commit violence upon other people at random), justifying defensive violence in response.
If half the class thinks blue eyes are superior, and the other half think brown eyes are superior, but no one's attacking each other and no one's oppressing each other, then there's no conflict. It's still not going to useful to sit around and argue philosophy.
- at_a_remove 3y agoI'm less concerned with wasting time arguing philosophy -- which I tend to find a bit of a dead end anyway -- and more concerned with pre-emptive violence. "Rick is threatening me." "Rick holds beliefs which might eventually threaten me." "Rick holds beliefs that might eventually threaten someone in a group I care about." "My interpretation of the beliefs I think Rick holds might eventually threaten someone in a group I care about." "I heard something about Rick's group memberships and my interpretation of the beliefs I think those groups hold might eventually threaten someone in a group I care about." And on.