The problem I find with people seeking to speak from a position of morality like yourself is you really don't know that Indonesia has been a pretty genocidal little jerk for some time now.

I sympathize with this point, and it applies across the board to those who form reaching opinions based on incomplete background knowledge.

The soft science types like to talk about the historical but have little practical knowledge of History.

Wait... What? Who are these "types"? I'll go ahead and assume your disdain is limited to those such as the user you replied to who make blanket generalizations related to subjects they're largely unfamiliar with. I'm at a loss as for why you've conflated those speaking from ignorance and soft science in general.

Modern American keyboard social scientists seeking to view this with a reductionist attitude is not helpful.

Once again, it's downright bizarre that you've gone out of your way to frame your criticism of those-who-don't-know-what-they're-talking-about in a way that implicates social scientists. Moreover, the notion that social scientists are prone to harbor overly reductionist interpretations on issues such as this is not accurate. In my experience, it's just the opposite; social scientists contextualize historical and contemporary factors in order to develop broader understandings of given circumstances.

You realize the session you cited is chaired by and made up of social scientists, and the speaker you synced your link to is a Humanities professor who "majored in gender and postcolonial, comparative literature, and cultural studies," right?

I hope I've misunderstood your comment and what I took to be irrelevant denigration of social science was actually just a feature of your characterization of keyboard warriors, so if that's the case I'd appreciate any clarification.