The Demonization of the Opposition

POSTED BY: SoupCatcher
UPDATED: Sunday, August 1, 2004 20:50
VIEWED: 35776
PAGE 16 of 20

PREV PAGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NEXT PAGE

DRAKON

Thursday, July 22, 2004 2:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
This response is an experiment on my part. There are two assumptions I will make. The first is that you are a supporter of Bush. The second is that you are a supporter of the Republican party.

Guilty on both counts. Although Bush has done some thing, some policies that I disagree with, on the whole, I think he is doing a good job, and considering what he is dealing with, a better job than I had expected. Not perfect, not excellent, but still pretty good.

As for being a Republican, part of that is genetic. Grandpa was in the Florida legislator back in the early 70's late 60 time frame, representing Orlando. And helping Disney World get set up, which has proven a boon to the local economy.

But partly, looking around at the other parties, well, I don't see myself fitting into the Democrats, not with my views and opinions. A lot of the left is far too autocratic in vision and sure of themselves for my taste. Libertarians have a lot of attractive features, a lot of attractive policy ideas, but some that I just don't see as workable. And the ones that appear most workable, have already been co-opted by Republicans anyway.

I find Republicans and conservative in general to be better at debate. But your milage may vary.

Now, if I may, I assume that you are in the opposition. Does my party allegence automatically invalidate my views?

Quote:
So two possibilities arise: either he remembered what he had said four months earlier or he did not. Neither option is flattering. To go from "hundreds of weapons inspectors" to "And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in" in four months time is pretty remarkable. Now if he forgot what he had said four months earlier (and had been saying for months before that) then he is incompetent. If he remembered what he had said four months earlier then he knew that his new statement was wrong, and he used it anyway, and used it as justification for the invasion, and that is a lie.

First off, do you disagree with my definition of lying? Do you see making an accidental misstatement as equally immoral as knowingly making a false statement?

Second. Allowing inspectors to enter Iraq is hardly "letting them in." Lets face it, if the justification for the war were solely about WMDs, Hans Blix could have declared Iraq free of WMDs and signed off on it. He did not. He could not do so honestly. He noted numerous problems with cooperation with Saddam's regime. In short, Saddam was not cooperating with the inspections he was required to do so, by those UN resolutions.

So, if you are saying that letting inspectors to stand around on Iraqi soil, not letting them do their job marks "letting them in". I think I got to disagree there. Now as to why Kofi Annan did not correct Bush, I really can't say. I do offer the possibility that Bush was not wrong in his statement, that Kofi understood what he was saying, and agreed. Because that reflected what was actually going on at the time.

Quote:
I will continue to argue that the statements he made in the lead up to the war, and the indisputable fact that there were inspectors in Iraq, make his later statement that Hussein would not allow inspectors into Iraq a lie. In the end it's a judgement call but I feel that the evidence supports my position and that only belief supports your position.

Well thank you for honestly dismissing what I am about to say before I say it.

I understand what Bush meant in both statements. You look at time frames, and even prior to the kicking out of inspectors in 1998, technically that is true. We have had hundreds of inspectors in Iraq, but again, it is also true that if Saddam had been cooperative, Hans Blix could have signed off on that cooperation and he did not.

That is the biggest problem with this latest incarnation of the Bush lied gambit. Blix did not declare Saddam in compliance. That lack of declaration is the basis for my belief that Saddam did not let the inspectors in in any me

RUE

Thursday, July 22, 2004 7:42 PM

Quote:
even Blix could not even bring himself to declaring Saddam in compliance with the inspections

Actually, what Blix said was there was not enough information either way, and two to three months of inspections would settle the issue conclusively.

Quote:
even prior to the kicking out of inspectors in 1998

The UN withdrew the inspectors because US and British bombing and missile-fire (not just on no-fly zones but even into Baghdad) made Iraq an unsafe country to work in.

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, July 23, 2004 12:36 AM

I stated my assumptions up front because it has been my experience that there are people who are Republicans who do not support Bush, there are people who are not Republicans who support Bush, there are people who are Republicans who support Bush, and there are people who are not Republicans who do not support Bush. I assumed that you were a Republican who supports Bush and I stated those assumptions as a check. If I was wrong I hoped you would correct me. The reason why I felt it was important to make that distinction is that I have had many conversations with people in all four of those categories and I have noticed trends and I wanted to make sure that my observations concerning you were placed in the appropriate category. This is, of course, leaving aside what it means to support Bush although I do have a simplified rubric (If you disagree with anything that Bush has said or done in the war on terrorism than according to his "with us or against us" line you are classified by him as not supporting him so you might as well embrace that distinction - I purposefully use the word anything to highlight the universality of Bush's challenge). For myself, I am in the not Republican who do not support Bush category. To add needless complexity , I am in the not Democrat not Republican who do not support Bush group.

I labeled my previous response to you as an experiment because I wanted to test some other observations. One pattern I have seen you engage in is to re-frame what is being discussed, and then generate a large number of points on this new topic. I liken it to shooting with a shotgun. This is highly effective and takes more of the "go broad" approach. My personal preference is to stick with one point and in detail state my position. I liken it to shooting with a rifle. This is highly efficient and takes more of the "go deep" approach. My motivation is to clearly define the area of discussion, present my position, listen to the position of others and the evidence they bring to bear, and decide if there is a reason to re-evaluate my position based on the new information. So I have been at a bit of a loss in how to interpret your remarks because I am not used to dealing with the sheer unsupported amount of information coming my way. I guess another way to put is: when someone asks what is water giving them a glass of distilled, purified H2O versus giving someone a lake.

This particular topic, why demonization, has gone all over the map. And there have been a number of times I have found myself addressing points that have completely diverged from the original topic and operating away from my preferences. At these times I have tried to return back to the topic. But I was curious what would happen if I instead tried to embrace the meandering path and address your post point by point. I wanted to see if there would be convergence or divergence. In my post before my previous post I attempted to distinguish between personalization and demonization using four examples: two of personalization and two of demonization. I purposefully chose examples of both conservative and liberal, Republican and Democrat. In your response, you attempted to do two things: point up an area in my definition of demonization that you felt needed to be clarified and challenge the validity of one of my examples (that of Bush lied). In challenging the validity of the Bush example you first stated that you didn't think Bush made the statement, then asserted that it is impossible to prove Bush lied because of the definition of lying, then stated that it was an inconsistent position because people were okay with Clinton lying, and then went off on a tangent about the problems with the implications of the Bush lied personalization.

In my next post I attempted to address both of your two main points. For the first I took the approach of working on each of the four sub-points. I provided a quote that shows Bush said what you think he didn't say. I next provided an earlier quote that contradicted the first quote. I l

RUE

Friday, July 23, 2004 1:28 AM

There are added functions for demonization: it can serve to gauge the level of support for an agenda. And when backed by powerful people, it can create a self-sustaining public opinion.

It's exemplified by: "When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. ..." (The history is off, Hitler started with the Communists, the unions and the gypsies.)

First an idea is floated - Jewish conspiracy. What level of authority seems to be generating this? What are other people saying? If there is high-level approval, few dissent. And some people voice agreement. Others don't want to stand out, so they add their endorsement. And before you know it, an agenda is launched. On the flip side, a lack of dissent can invite strengthening the agenda even more.

It's an interactive process of mutual testing.

SIGNYM

Friday, July 23, 2004 2:10 AM

Huh. I was wondering what the experiment was.

As far as demonization is concerned, I think it's beign used as an overly broad category. My view is that demonization is intended to make the destruction of a group of people acceptable by painting them as threatening and dangerous.

It would overlap with prejudice when the pre-judgements focus on fearsome qualities (as opposed to cute, disgusting, or dimishing prejudices )

Another way to make the destruction of a group of people acceptable is through desensitization. An example would be the fact that we might not respond to the sight of starving African blacks quite the same way that we would respond to the sight of starving African-Amercians because the former is relatively common. However, desensitization prevents assistance, while demonization promotes active hostility.

The fourth category- to make people "not listen" to a speaker- is really rhetoric. It MAY involve demonization, but can also include logical fallacies and semantic tricks, and could even include simply exposing a relevant truth. (Sometimes, the speaker being ignored should be ignored.)

My take is that prejudice, demonization, and desensitization all rely on dehumanization. (The fourth example doesn't belong to the same category.) Sorry for the not=too-well thoughtout comment- my usual 15 minutes is up!

RUE

Friday, July 23, 2004 3:50 AM

My understanding so far -
personalization - assigning negative traits to a person based on limited observation.
levels of personalization:
that person is driving dangerously (neutral)
that person is a dangerous driver (unwarranted generalization)
a-hole! what a jerk! (also dehumanization?)

dehumanization - not recognizing or acknowledging humanity of others identical to one's own
It seems to happen naturally in the US, and maybe elsewhere; it is necessary (but not sufficient) for demonization.
And this is my example: you may pass by the 'crazy drunk' without strong concern in any direction, due to dehumanization. But it won't impel you to get out your boots and teach the worthless bum a lesson next time you see him or his worthless buddies. Demonization seems necessary for people to volunteer harm (in general, except the people who like to).

I don't know if there is a category for describing a person individually and accurately based on good knowledge. 'Ever since I've known him, you can't trust what he says. Sometimes he tells the truth, but you can never be sure.' Might accurately categorizing someone fall in this realm? "He's a liar".

Demonization - of individuals or groups, with truth or falsehoods, by the powerful or powerless, and is it psychological or political?
It is an existing psychological mechanism, or it wouldn't be there to be exploited. Whether or not it serves a useful individual purpose, I couldn't say. As a group practice, I think it is essentially based on lies. (Otherwise it is merely an accurate reflection of the world.) It places groups of people into a 'dangerous and inhuman' category. Demonization by groups is all about adverse action: you identify 'enemies', gather allies, motivate to strike, rationalize harm etc, whether the action is merely a distant possibility, or imminent.

And that's as far as I got.

LTNOWIS

Friday, July 23, 2004 6:48 AM

Quote:
We removed Saddam from power because it will make America, as well as the rest of the world, and that includes the Iraqis, safer from the combination of terrorists and WMDs. That is the central point in all of this. The rest is a means to that end.

Didn't you say freeing the Iraqis from terrible dictatorship was another reason?

Also, I don't/didn't think that the war was a good idea because I don't think we'll be any safer from terrorists or WMDs. If we spend all of money on this, than we can't spend it on more productive counterterror solutions and WMD containment projects. And now that everyone hates us more, they'll be less sympathetic to our struggle and more inclined to kill us. The 900 US soldiers killed, other soldiers killed, and all the Iraqi soldiers, civilians, and insurgents killed certainly won't be safer. So while Bush's intentions may have been good, I really think this whole war was counterproductive and misguided. If I had believed good would come of this war, than I might have supported it, but I thought it was a bad idea, and sadly I appear to be right.

PS: sorry for jumping in on this debate. I read most of the previous stuff.

DRAKON

Friday, July 23, 2004 7:56 AM

Quote:
Actually, what Blix said was there was not enough information either way, and two to three months of inspections would settle the issue conclusively.

That is kind of the point. Saddam was required to comply 12 years ago, after the first Gulf war. Not in another 2 or 3 months, but right after the first war, 12 years ago.

There was not enough information, because Saddam was not complying. And that alone is a violation of the UN resolutions. There should have been no need for inspectors in 2003, or even 1998 to be evacuated. They should have had, and could have had, their job done in a few months at any time if only Saddam had complied.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

LTNOWIS

Friday, July 23, 2004 8:02 AM

Sorry for responding to Drakon's very old post, but I really disagree with him and would like to talk about it.
Originally posted by Drakon:

Quote:
The same World Court, headed by a Chinese judge that declared Israel's security barrier (the Wall) illegal and not justified as a means of self defense? A country whose major tourist attraction is a centuries old wall built for exactly that purpose, and fails to even see the irony in that statement

Are you referring to the West Wall? Because I thought that used to be part of the Jerusalem temple, not a defense structure in any way. And they've also got Jesus's birthplace and the Dome of the Rock, which are also big tourist draws.

Now on to the bigger, ideological confrontation. These quotes were responses to earlier arguments, so they're sort of out of context. But they make declarations I'd like to dispute.

Quote:
Um... You have several problems with this line of attack. First off, as unlawful combantants, the Geneva convention does not apply. Since the enemy does not recognize the Geneva Convention, it does not apply. So all this talk about the Geneva Convention, you might want to read up on it first.
................................................

The law is not an end unto itself. Its not some magic wand that makes everything all right if you simply comply with it. Actions have consequences, and very few of them are legal. And since you are stuck in this legality mode, again, I have to point out that you are not bound by the Convention if the other party refuses to comply. THAT IS ITS ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM!

It is built on the principle of reciprocity. Because there are plenty of actions that can be very effective in warfare, and yet crimes under the Geneva convention. (Use of chemical weapons is a good example) Without that principle or reciprocity, that puts those who stick to it, despite the failure of the opposition to do so, at a disadvantage. It lets the bad guys win.

Basically you're saying that those who give up their human rights don't deserve them, right?

So could you ever support systematic rape, genocide, torture, etc. as a realistic method of winning wars, if the enemy was doing it too? If the enemy starts beheading our guys, like they did, should we also resort to terror beheadings? Human rights, i believe, are things that make you better than the enemy. I believe that shoving a flashlight up someone's ass, like in Abu Gharib, is just plain wrong, no matter what the context. I believe that torture's wrong, even if it's just minor stuff. So's sleep or food deprivation to soften people up. If you lose because of your beliefs, so be it, go down shooting. The Jews who didn't believe in fighting on the Sabbath didn't resist when the Romans came in their cave to kill them. They valued their beliefs even more than their own lives.

DRAKON

Friday, July 23, 2004 8:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I labeled my previous response to you as an experiment because I wanted to test some other observations. One pattern I have seen you engage in is to re-frame what is being discussed, and then generate a large number of points on this new topic. I liken it to shooting with a shotgun. This is highly effective and takes more of the "go broad" approach. My personal preference is to stick with one point and in detail state my position. I liken it to shooting with a rifle. This is highly efficient and takes more of the "go deep" approach. My motivation is to clearly define the area of discussion, present my position, listen to the position of others and the evidence they bring to bear, and decide if there is a reason to re-evaluate my position based on the new information. So I have been at a bit of a loss in how to interpret your remarks because I am not used to dealing with the sheer unsupported amount of information coming my way. I guess another way to put is: when someone asks what is water giving them a glass of distilled, purified H2O versus giving someone a lake.

I am long winded. I have to plead guilty to that. One might blame Den Beste's influence, as I read him alot, but I was probably long winded long before then as well.

And even as long winded as I am, I still get "Well what about this?" or "You forgot that." kind of comments. So brevity does not seem to be an answer anyway.

No, I don't footnote and reference each and every declarative in my postings. That would take too much time, and I see it as more a distraction, than anything useful. But I do see my positions as parts of a cohesive whole, and trying to explain that whole means sometimes going back to first principles and such, which tend to make my posts long anyway. Besides, I don't think I have posted anything that is not readily available on the net.

But more importantly, And this gets to your back to the central point of this thread. I mentioned earlier that perhaps this was a perception problem, between a charge with a case, and a charge without a case.

When we are talking about demonization, what we are in fact talking about is making charges about a person, to effectively discrediting him. To get folks not to listen to him, and listen to us instead. We know our case against the other guy. But usually we are left with only the sound bite charges from the opposition. They may know their case very well. Or possibly, we've heard their case, and rebutted them already. The key point is a lack of communication. Part of this is brought about by the nature of demonization in the first place. Even if it is partially effective, that can prevents any rebuttal or defense, and quite often the cases, from getting listened to.

Quote:
At this point in reading your response I came to the conclusion that we were only going to further diverge if I kept responding to you point by point.

But I think you had demostrated the point very clearly. After making your case for the "Bush lied" meme, you went on to give a very spirited and I must say, descent defense of Kerry against the charge of "flip flopping". You apparently still reject my defense, and to be honest, I am not certain I would accept your defense either. Its not that neither of us is listening to the other, its just that we each find the other's case weak, compared to our own.

Quote:
So I'm back to the topic of demonization. I agree with you that one goal of demonization is to marginalize. But I think there's other reasons for demonization. Another reason to demonize is that then, no matter what happens to those people, it is justified. Those who are not in power demonize those in power so that they will lose power. Those in power demonize those who are not in power so that they may remain in power. Those who buy into demonization buy into the belief that only one group of people should hold power. In my mind that's a dangerous belief to hold.

I see where your concern is, and I admit that it can be a p

PREV PAGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NEXT PAGE