you argument is inherently inconsistent because you are using capital O Otherization while asoul is using lower case o otherization. you are claiming lower case o otherization is incoherent or based on a misunderstanding. but obviously lower case o otherization means something. you shouldnt let the technical definitions in your social theory get in the way of communication.
its as simple as saying "not all things that sound facist are harmful in the ways facist is" and explaining why. you can do this without invoking jargon only you understand, or if you insist, you can define your jargon and the motivating context for it.
is it incomprehensible that asoul thinks that otherization can still justify violence against non subalterns? i think this is not a trivial claim to make.
for example, i argue that in war, we otherize the enemy so we can kill them better. in a fair war both sides have socio-economic and socio-political power, and simply do it each other. this isnt necessarily in the facist framework, though.
Asoul already tacitly agreed with that by presupposing that otherization allows the non-Other to commit indiscriminate acts of violence upon the Other. That's his entire reason why "otherizing cops is bad." But the conclusion of violence upon the other can't be made without introducing the subaltern
Like I am all for discussion. I don't want to be the white person at the fence ordering you (a black person in this analogy - not meant as an assumption about your ethnicity) to stop talking to the Other
But I don't want you to get hurt and frustrated and I think that is the path you are going down
Wrong. Otherization isn't necessarily capitalized. The Other is capitalized with a big O.
Yeah, it means the same thing.
Asoul is using the exact same social theory for his fucking impact claims about otherization. Either he can't make claims about the inevitable violence from otherization or he has to accept the subaltern and the rest of the theory you goddamn moron