4 ms·
Ah, I see where you're coming from... say no more. So you're saying that some cultural symbol used in a derogatory manner to address the "Little Russians".. in
by libertine 2y ago
Ah, I see where you're coming from... say no more.
So you're saying that some cultural symbol used in a derogatory manner to address the "Little Russians".. inferiors to Russia... is humanizing and a show of equal brotherly love?
You chose to empty the word of the meaning into a simple hairstyle, much like the Nazis just made use of cultural symbols to address the Jewish or Polish people.
It doesn't look like you're not being honest.
It's funny because that's one of the Russian twists in their propaganda, "let's focus on the subjective meaning of words... and not the actions!".
Here's my take on it, if someone goes into someone else land to erase their culture and kill as many people as possible, terrorizing them, and trying to make their living unbearable while addressing them by an ethnic slur, I'd say that's enough of a sign of dehumanization.
- ossobuco 2y agoI guess you stopped reading at "hairstyle" and completely missed the ethnic slur part.
- libertine 2y agoNo, I've read it all. But looks like you've ignored the part where I said that an ethnic slur tied to actions is what renders it dehumanizing. > You chose to empty the word of the meaning into a simple hairstyle, much like the Nazis just made use of cultural symbols to address the Jewish or Polish people for example. Using your assessment, the Nazi Germany slur "Schlitzauge" was a "simple" ethnic slur to address Slavic people, or "Polacke" was "just" slur to address people from Poland. If you add the context of propaganda and war, and the actions toward those people I think it's pretty clear it was dehumanizing. You don't need to be literal to dehumanize a group of people, it's actions taken with a given label that put meaning into a slur.
- aguaviva 2y ago[flagged]