Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
If the implication is that antilocution is an early stage of extermination, then I can't possibly agree, because that sounds far too simplistic.

Banter is very difficult to assess, and probably impossible to eliminate. Any groups that overlap will always have some level of banter, and I'm not convinced it's always a bad thing.

I think it only becomes a bad thing when it's used as an excuse to depersonalise the other group.

But it's the depersonalisation of members of the other group that's the problem. The banter can be a part of that. But it can also be anywhere else on a spectrum from genuinely friendly to very competitive without actually being pathological.

The problem I have with the framing is that it's putting the cart before the horse. You can't use the Nazis or the Klan to make points about diversity training because they're pathological to start with. They begin with hatred of The Other, and everything that happens after that is a logical progression of that hatred.

If your culture doesn't promote that hatred  forcefully, the worst that will happen is some of the more paranoid people will drift into avoidance. But it's the constant external reinforcement that breeds the pathological hatred in the rest of the population and leads to the next stages. I don't believe they happen naturally without it.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Feb 10th, 2007 at 06:51:47 AM EST

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series