Afghanistan

[Dill]

(08-26-2021, 09:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Such comparisons "call" or equate the groups compared whether you like it or not.  This has been explained to you and you choose to ignore it.  Such comparisons are inflammatory, whether intentional or not, and serve no constructive purpose.  They literally only serve to equate the group being compared to some of the worst human beings who have ever lived.

I don't think calling scum scum is name calling, it's accurate labeling.

No, you haven't "explained"--you've merely asserted that "such comparisons equate groups." Likely to you they do, given your stance outside the ethos and methods of modern research.

I'm the one who has explained--for example how such comparisons are a staple of social-scientifice scholarship on authoritarian regimes, how they are only "inflammatory" to people who don't understand scholarship or feel threatened by it, and how, in the hands of social scientists, such comparisons serve the constructive purpose of illuminating present anti-democratic trends in democratic states.

And such illumination is much needed now in a nation where more and more people have difficulty recognizing authoritarian politics. Do you dispute that that is the case? If you don't, is it your view that the problem is best dealt with without reference to "some of the worst human beings that have ever lived"?

The entire international insitution of social science and humanities scholarship "ignores" the logic of your claim, and the censorship it implies, whether you like it or not.

Continued repetition of your assertion such comparisons are "inflammatory" etc. won't address any of my points of explanation. 

You need to explain why using past authoritarian regimes to examine present tendencies is wrong IN PRINCIPLE, i.e.,having no "constructive purpose." If you think it not wrong in principle, then how could it be done without COMPARISON? 

Rejection of social scientific researech practice and goals in this area is leaning pretty far to the Right.