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

[Kalbear]

Yes to @Yukle's point, plus the political systems reward this significantly more. More and more districts are completely safe, meaning that the biggest competition is in the primary - which makes you more likely to take a harder ideological purity test, especially as primaries tend to get the most vocal and most activist people from both parties. Moderates can only survive to a degree in statewide elections, but even they tend to succumb to this depending on the state. 

[maarsen]

1 hour ago, GAROVORKIN said:

You forgot pointless Larry.

He forgot inane also. 

[Darth Richard II]

OK, so we've established that Garovowhatever is a demon. How do we banish him back to the abyss?

[Darth Richard II]

14 hours ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

She gets all of her news from Fox and spends her days in an environment surrounded by old, blue collar white people, none of which use the internet.

I don't think she actually voted for Trump, but she will vote for Republicans until the day that she dies. She thinks that the alt-right are some fringe troublemakers with no real power in the Republican party, and that all the "good" Christian Republicans are just waiting for their chance to turn on Trump and roust him from the party, not quite realizing that he is the party now. It's strange because, other than abortion, she doesn't stand on a single Republican issue. She let her (at the time undocumented) immigrant daughter-in-law work in her family business under the table, she's raised money to get clean water and clothes and food (and *sigh* Bibles...) for kids in Zambia, she hates guns, she's for everyone having healthcare.

It's like talking to somebody in a cult.

I'm actually reading a book atm called "When Prophecy Fails" about a pair of psychologists who infiltrated a doomsday cult and wrote about the experience, and a lot of it is really applicable to what the US is dealing with now. When people get into that headspace they will rationalize away anything, but in order for this to work the message needs to be reinforced by like-minded people around them. If we wanna break up the Fox Propaganda machine, we have to keep lines of communication open.

I'm not saying pretend there is anything resembling an equivalency between the left and right, as GAROVORKIN is trying to claim with this topic. I'm not even saying that an overwhelming majority of traditionally Republican voters, probably my mother included, don't deserve the liberal scorn that they're getting. But what's going to be effective right now is education. I have to believe that.

Yeah, your mom sounds almost exactly like my grandmother. She refused to vote for trump too but sure as hell would never vote for a dem because of the same issue. (She also doesn't like the new pope so much but that's a whole other discussion).

[DMC]

32 minutes ago, Yukle said:

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?

Generally agree with the post, but your anecdote reminded me of a cool (and actually encouraging) experimental study of political discourse on TV (Mutz 2007) that I used in my Media & Politics class.  It found that respondents viewed the opposing perspective as more legitimate not only when when it was presented in a civil rather than uncivil manner, but also even based on the camera angle - with close-ups (hence "in your face") leading to a decreased tendency to view the opposition as legitimate.

[Yukle]

12 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

... also even based on the camera angle - with close-ups (hence "in your face") leading to a decreased tendency to view the opposition as legitimate.

That's fascinating! That's also the opposite outcome of what I would have thought. So having a face to the argument makes you like it less, but the argument itself stands on its own merit?

ETA: Haven't finished reading it, but here's a conclusion that is different to what I'd have guessed:

"Just as in the face-to-face psychology experiment described above, non-like-minded people and policies should be even less well liked when viewers are forced to experience disagreeable views from a highly intimate, “in-your-face” perspective. Likewise, well-liked people and their perspectives may be even more positively regarded as a result of the up-close and personal perspective."

[Yukle]

10 minutes ago, maarsen said:

He forgot inane also. 

 

6 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

OK, so we've established that Garovowhatever is a demon. How do we banish him back to the abyss?

I don't want to pump up the flames, other than to say I think GAROVORKIN has taken some pretty direct insults with pretty good grace, and I think it was an invitation to just move on, rather than perpetuate things.

Let's practise what we preach and play the ball, not the player. I'm enjoying this discussion, so don't let's fill the thread with jibes. Obviously I have no idea if this is all in jest, but to an outside it looks like it's cutting a bit deep right now.

I hope I'm not being preachy? I dunno, I know it's not my place, but there's my one-fiftieth of a dollar's worth.

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Yukle said:

So having a face to the argument makes you like it less, but the argument itself stands on its own merit?

Not quite, the treatments are civil vs. uncivil arguments and camera angle and their effect on the legitimacy of the arguments.  Anyway, if you're reading it I'll let you interpret it yourself!

[GAROVORKIN]

1 hour ago, Darth Richard II said:

OK, so we've established that Garovowhatever is a demon. How do we banish him back to the abyss?

Sorry Darth,  Im here to stay .

[maarsen]

1 hour ago, Yukle said:

 

I don't want to pump up the flames, other than to say I think GAROVORKIN has taken some pretty direct insults with pretty good grace, and I think it was an invitation to just move on, rather than perpetuate things.

Let's practise what we preach and play the ball, not the player. I'm enjoying this discussion, so don't let's fill the thread with jibes. Obviously I have no idea if this is all in jest, but to an outside it looks like it's cutting a bit deep right now.

I hope I'm not being preachy? I dunno, I know it's not my place, but there's my one-fiftieth of a dollar's worth.

Point taken. I will try to do better. 

[Altherion]

16 hours ago, Rippounet said:

The left is mostly about protecting the weakest members of our societies.

Mostly, but far from entirely. For example, the left in both Europe and the US is in favor of increased immigration -- from Africa and the Middle East for the former and from south of the border from the latter -- despite the fact that these immigrants will compete with the poorest for both jobs and government benefits. Likewise, the left makes its distinctions regarding the weakest based on immutable characteristics such as race and gender (well, nearly immutable, anyway) and if some individuals among the weakest happen to be on the wrong side of those distinctions, they're actually far worse off than they would be without the left.

All of that said, you are right: the left does favor the weakest... but what you left out is that they do so at the expense of the middle class rather than that of the rich. The latter do quite well for themselves whether the left or the right is in power.

17 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Instead, my research has led me to believe that the right-wing movement needs to be systematically crushed before it is too late.

Well, it's either that or they will systematically crush you. At this point, the latter is arguably more likely: the ones in the US are much better armed and the ones in Europe have mostly sidelined the left and are now struggling with centrists.

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Likewise, the left makes its distinctions regarding the weakest based on immutable characteristics such as race and gender (well, nearly immutable, anyway) and if some individuals among the weakest happen to be on the wrong side of those distinctions, they're actually far worse off than they would be without the left.

 

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

 

That particular statement follows simply from the slightly less than zero-sum nature of today's good jobs and the zero-sum nature of high-end universities.

[mcbigski]

On 3/5/2018 at 2:36 PM, Kalbear said:

Also, note that in ASOIAF while political conflict can have multiple, nuanced sides not a single fucking person is trying to bargain with the Others. 

Craster.  

On 3/6/2018 at 7:54 PM, Altherion said:

Look, if either the people who voted for Republicans or the people they voted for were actual Nazis, people like you would be, at best, in prison. The Republicans currently control both the legislative and executive branches of government as well as the governments of most states. This is much, much more power than the actual Nazis (i.e the ones from Germany circa the 1930s) held before they moved to make their control permanent. The Republicans have done nothing of the sort and will almost certainly lose power in the upcoming elections.

What you (and, more importantly, the media you are taking your cues from) are doing is more than a little dangerous in the manner of the boy who cried wolf. The Republicans do not even remotely resemble Nazis, but you've devalued all of the words that might reasonably apply to them (words like 'racist' and 'sexist') to the point where nobody pays attention if you call them that anymore so you've moved on to a different one. The problem, of course, is that you're devaluing this word as well and if you ever do encounter something that is similar to the actual Nazis, when you call them that, people will say "so you mean like roughly the half of the country that votes Republican, right?"

Its how we get things like the Scalise shooting.  But he deserved it right?

Sure we could have a nicer more civil society without demonization.  But theres a lot of incentive to not compromise.  Better to rule in hell....

[Darth Richard II]

I get the felling is trump dressed up like Hitler and started only speaking German some people would still say he doesn't resemble a Nazi.

[all swedes are racist]

26 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Craster.  

uh, not a great example to the greater point bud

[Darth Richard II]

5 minutes ago, unpaid comintern said:

uh, not a great example to the greater point bud

Ha.

[Squab]

8 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

I get the felling is trump dressed up like Hitler and started only speaking German some people would still say he doesn't resemble a Nazi.

Its important to remember that anyone to the right of about Michael Moore is literally a Nazi, especially here.

[DMC]

50 minutes ago, Altherion said:

That particular statement follows simply from the slightly less than zero-sum nature of today's good jobs and the zero-sum nature of high-end universities.

Yeah I assume you were and are alluding to immigration and affirmative action.  I stand by my original post.

[mcbigski]

31 minutes ago, unpaid comintern said:

uh, not a great example to the greater point bud

Well if he said not even two people tried to make a deal w the Others there'd have been no comment.