Why Does the Political Right And Left Feel the Need to Demonize Each Other ?

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

There's quite a bit of data backing up the idea that Kalbear shared. Though, I think "reciprocity" might be a better term than "fairness." 

And as another friend pointed out, this is a good argument in favor of what you're saying. While liberals like to get angry and are angrier, that anger simply manifests itself as increased fear in the other person - and that, in turn, likely makes them more conservative. 

If you can induce anger - or sadness - in the other person, they'll be more susceptible to liberal viewpoints. This goes well with a lot of anecdotes about how many conservatives were against the ACA until they found out how it saved a family member or made someone's life they know better. And similarly, if you can reduce fear, disgust, or the ingroup joy in them, you'll also make it more likely for them to think more liberally. 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

Haha, good one.  I will try later, and did try a few minutes ago but the link wouldn’t work for me.  But I’m not at my comp. I’m on my phone.

I’m always a bit skeptical labeling or judging such a vast group of people.

Skepticism - especially on scientific accounts published by non-scientific papers - is completely reasonable and healthy. Skepticism based on the perceived bias of a paper is not nearly as special, and it's not like Yale is a hotbed for liberal activists and thinking. 

[DMC]

10 hours ago, Rippounet said:

There is a conspiracy. I am referring to the colossal amount of funding that goes into the right, into right-wing think tanks (AEI, Heritage, Hoover, Cato... etc), right-wing politicians and right-wing causes (NRA... ) with the very open purpose of seizing political power.

I agree with most of this post - particularly that the right's main drives are to serve the interests of the wealthy at the expense of the poor and the destruction of the welfare state; as well as the fact there is no way (and it's not useful to try) to reconcile today's left and right.  But this is a very odd sentence.  First, isn't every politically-interested party's purpose to seize political power?  Second, it's not a conspiracy if it's "very open" - and you're right to say it is.  CPAC, the Federalist Society, etc, and their financial backers are indeed right out there in the open recruiting, soliciting, and propagating their message, and have been for quite some time.  A conspiracy suggests the plan is secret, theirs is anything but.

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

And that does get to one of the basis points in the US at least (and some other developed nations, but mostly Western ones) - conservatives and liberals have deep, hereditary and genetic basis points that dictate to them how they feel, and these are not easily swayed by public opinion.

I'm as big a fan as the next guy on of the personality and even twins studies, but I think we should cool it on the declarative statements a bit.  The research is hardly conclusive, and any sentence that starts with "conservatives/liberals have genetic basis points" tends to give me the creeps.

[James Arryn]

On 2018-03-05 at 3:49 AM, Rippounet said:

Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong.

Oh, in which case he probably didn’t mean it but was obviously saying untruths because they somehow get to the heart of the deep anger of unrepresented white males in the face of oppressive minorities and their elite puppet masters. There are basically no wrong answers from that perspective. 

[Kalbear]

9 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I'm as big a fan as the next guy on of the personality and even twins studies, but I think we should cool it on the declarative statements a bit.  The research is hardly conclusive, and any sentence that starts with "conservatives/liberals have genetic basis points" tends to give me the creeps.

If you like, you can talk about it as epigenetic changes and early learning, but emotional biases learned as early as 4 years old indicating political leanings and this being reproducible across any number of experiments and studies makes it more likely to be the case. 

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

If you like, you can talk about it as epigenetic changes and early learning, but emotional biases learned as early as 4 years old indicating political leanings and this being reproducible across any number of experiments and studies makes it more likely to be the case. 

I was more referring to studies (like this one) that posit genetic markers are the direct mechanism for political preferences and sociopolitical attitudes.

[Rippounet]

6 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

It is really quite simple. We are talking about two very different value systems. With a massive - in my view unbridgeable - gulf between them. And yes, the guys on the right side of the divide DO consider many of the positions on the Left as evil. Just like you feel about their positions.

I'm interested in you telling us more about the way you view these different value systems, if you don't mind. I'm genuinely curious.

7 hours ago, Yukle said:

I don't disagree with this, and I suppose that the difference is whether you separate people in positions of power from people in positions of relatively nothing.

So it's not a case to me of the right-wing going crazy so much as it is that whoever is in power can be so easily corrupted.

[...]

However, to me it's the trappings of power that have allowed the leadership to become so indifferent to the needs of its membership. It's not a new concept by any means - and in the case of Jesus, he specifically warned about the corruption of wealth.

While I don't have a good solution, the issue is that the same people tend to be in power over very long periods of time, and become very good at entrenching their power. Being in power, as you correctly imply, is not necessarily the same as holding elected office. If it was that simple, then term limits would've solved much of the world's inequality.

You make a very good point.
Yes, power itself is a huge part of the problem.

7 hours ago, Yukle said:

All-in-all, I don't see the average right-wing commoner as the same person as the average right-wing person in power. I think that they're different people, one sort guided by idealistic principles (which I don't have any hesitation in saying I almost entirely disagree with) and one by greed.

I would agree. With the small caveat that even the average right-wing person tends to put their values and principles before other people's wellbeing these days. Issues like abortion or gun righs show this very clearly: the conservative viewpoint is all about principle, regardless of the consequences. There is a form of individualism at the heart of modern conservatism that is in itself a threat to most collectivist solutions to common problems, even when said solutions work. It's a rather recent evolution mind you, conservatism used to be far more reasonable.

This in turn is fueling much of the radicalisation on the left. A dozen years ago I could still sit with a conservative and discuss abortion with an open-mind. A middle-ground could be found that would satisfy everyone ; it's not like abortion is something desirable for anyone. But the right's crusade against it without any kind of consideration for the reasons that make abortion a necessity in the first place have poisoned the well. It has led me to the deeply entrenched opinion that the right to abortion is non-negotiable.

10 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I agree with most of this post - particularly that the right's main drives are to serve the interests of the wealthy at the expense of the poor and the destruction of the welfare state; as well as the fact there is no way (and it's not useful to try) to reconcile today's left and right.  But this is a very odd sentence.  First, isn't every politically-interested party's purpose to seize political power?  Second, it's not a conspiracy if it's "very open" - and you're right to say it is.  CPAC, the Federalist Society, etc, and their financial backers are indeed right out there in the open recruiting, soliciting, and propagating their message, and have been for quite some time.  A conspiracy suggests the plan is secret, theirs is anything but.

Parts of the plan are more or less secret though. Like the right's plan to destroy social security in the US or free education in Europe.
And while some funding is made public, some isn't (I have tried to "follow the money" behind some think tanks).
Which is why it is both open and a conspiracy: the conspiracy is that the obvious links between organizations and their objectives are only part of the story.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Rippounet said:

Parts of the plan are more or less secret though. Like the right's plan to destroy social security in the US or free education in Europe.

I guess that depends on one's perspective.  Personally I view "privatizing" social security as a fairly naked dog whistle, just as trickle down economics, the death tax, corporate tax cuts, and even deregulation.

3 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

And while some funding is made public, some isn't (I have tried to "follow the money" behind some think tanks).

I suppose you could say dark money is an issue, but the impetus to keep such funding secret is usually due to foreign investments.

[Kalbear]

14 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I was more referring to studies (like this one) that posit genetic markers are the direct mechanism for political preferences and sociopolitical attitudes.

Oh neat! This footnote is YET ANOTHER ONE:
 

Quote

Secondly, there is a relationship between disgust, political preferences, and sense of smell (Miller 1997). Rozin, Haidt, and McCauley (2000) suggested that humans have a ‘‘core disgust’’ system which involves the rejection of foul tastes and smells, and this system has been shown to differ by political orientation. Individuals with more conservative political positions intimated a higher predisposition to feel disgust

 

[Rippounet]

5 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I guess that depends on one's perspective.  Personally I view "privatizing" social security as a fairly naked dog whistle, just as trickle down economics, the death tax, corporate tax cuts, and even deregulation.

Ruining the efficiency of public services (/government) to later get rid of them is not that well-known a strategy. I mean, you and I are probably well aware of it, but the average citizen often finds it hard to believe that the right has this kind of long-term plans in mind, or is even that devious to begin with..
And as well-informed as I may be, I still discover new aspects or parts of their plan on a regular basis. Theirs is a long game.

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Individuals with more conservative political positions intimated a higher predisposition to feel disgust

I suspect after the Trump administration this correlation will abate.

12 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I mean, you and I are probably well aware of it, but the average citizen often finds it hard to believe that the right has this kind of long-term plans in mind, or is even that devious to begin with.

Right, like I said, matter of perspective.  However, broadly speaking, I do think if the average voter knows anything about the GOP, it's that they are the party of the wealthy.

[GAROVORKIN]

4 hours ago, Zorral said:

You are 100% wrong.

He, however, is 100% correct.

But then -- you know nothing, and sure as heck are no Jon Snow! 

 

I Thank you both for helping  prove my point on  Demonization.

 

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

A study by Yale on the Washington post?  So we believe all studies now, no matter what kind of bias the people conduct them have?  Or just the studies that back up our own beliefs?

I saw a study a few weeks back that said conservatives are more attractive than liberals; both seem rather silly, to me.

From Breitbart or Fox -- headquarters of fake news -- perhaps you did, but from Yale you didn't.  

[Zorral]

2 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

 

Yeah, Zorral  your not right. But you both did help prove my point Demonization

 

Oh,  and nice sarcastic smiley by the way.

That's all ya got?    Sad, so sad.

[aceluby]

26 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

I Thank you both for helping  prove my point on  Demonization.

Saying someone is wrong is not demonization.

[GAROVORKIN]

25 minutes ago, Zorral said:

That's all ya got?    Sad, so sad.

It's an off day for me. 

[GAROVORKIN]

2 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Saying someone is wrong is not demonization.

I was being a bit of snot when I   Typed that and my new comment.  Your 100 percent correct.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

25 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

It's an off day for me. 

This is literally exactly the same as all the other days.  An inane, specious, or naive statement, or a nonsequitur, followed by an emoticon.  

And only other people can prove or disprove your points because you make zero effort to argue or make them yourself.  

*Gouging eyeballs out with dull spork emoji*

[GAROVORKIN]

53 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

This is literally exactly the same as all the other days.  An inane, specious, or naive statement, or a nonsequitur, followed by an emoticon.  

And only other people can prove or disprove your points because you make zero effort to argue or make them yourself.  

*Gouging eyeballs out with dull spork emoji*

You forgot pointless Larry.

[Yukle]

To return the thread to the OP, arguing for moderate reform with the assistance of others is not a winning political strategy. Insisting that support for political opponents will lead to the end of civilisation while support your own cause is a means to making heaven on earth is more emotionally engaging.

It's a phenomenon of psychology that hearing the same thing again and again will make you more likely to believe it - even if you knew it was wrong to begin with. Ration arguments are generally inferior to passionate ones in persuasive outcomes, so they're what you tend to see. It's not that there aren't people having reasoned and considered discourse, just that it makes for boring viewing, and so you don't see it.

And, be honest, if you were sitting on a train and to your left there were two people engaged in an argument where both are accusing the other one of harbouring the political views of a genocidal tyrant, while to your right the same content was being discussed but by two respectful people who disagree but don't call names, which one grabs your attention?

The ridiculous name-calling exists, absolutely. It's nothing new, sadly, and even ancient politicians of Rome and Persia lamented tribalism and extremists. The difference now is that the digital age has made the attacks so much faster and harder to ignore.