The Effects of Dehumanizing Language in Political Discourse

[37L1]

You wont find them in the parties. Go out and vote beyond the parties if you want change.

Right now we are the 350lb fat arse complaining about how being fat sucks, doing nothing himself, while waiting on his McDonalds delivery.

I might be wrong, but that isn't going to do it either.

 

[LouderVol]

I might be wrong, but that isn't going to do it either.

I cant promise it will be better. But you want get change voting the same letter everytime. And those in power are never going to vote to give themselves less power.

 

[37L1]

I cant promise it will be better. But you want get change voting the same letter everytime. And those in power are never going to vote to give themselves less power.

I get where you are coming from. The last one that had a chance gave us 8 years of a Democrat instead of 4 more of a Republican. That's always going to be the result because not enough are really sick of this ish to turn away from the way we do things and take a path less traveled. So we just routinely b!tch at the choices and the results.

Woo?

 

[0nelilreb]

Thought this was an interesting read/listen. A few years ago, this was one of my soapbox issues, but if I’m being honest I believe I have slipped into engaging in it at times.

LOL

 

[RockyTop85]

What

Who are the "Biden base" that hold office in the Democrat party?

Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Chuck Schumer, Eric Swalwell, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Adam Schiff, etc. (won't even list members of The Squad)? Can't see it happening as long as those folks behave the way that they do. "#resist" existed after the election and before the inauguration and the Women's March on Washington occurred the day after.

So who exactly is this base that wants the parties to get along?

I'd say that this base wants the parties to get along, as long as they give them everything that they want, when they want it and nothing less.

Characterizing the entire party by a few elected officials is not “dehumanizing” but it doesn’t seem like a legitimate exercise, either.

Aside from the fact that I was talking about the democratic electorate at large and not elected officials, do you legitimately want me to name moderate democrat elected officials? How many will make you happy?

 

[RockyTop85]

LOL

Who is Biden's base? Dems have shown zero desire for the parties to get along. They want the Dems to go back to dominating the Rs and the Rs capitulating to their every move.

https://www.usatoday.com/elections/results/primaries/democratic/

 

[hog88]

2020 Democratic Primary Election Results | USA TODAY

That link was supposed to show me what?

 

[VolStrom]

That link was supposed to show me what?

Well duh, Biden won. Lol!

 

[37L1]

Characterizing the entire party by a few elected officials is not “dehumanizing” but it doesn’t seem like a legitimate exercise, either.

Aside from the fact that I was talking about the democratic electorate at large and not elected officials, do you legitimately want me to name moderate democrat elected officials? How many will make you happy?

How about limiting it to only those who have positions of power within the Democrat Party and can actually do something towards "working together" and have shown an inclination to do so by their actions not just words? Biden?

Yes, I know who you were talking about. So where are these "moderates" who want to work with the other party?

Are these some of them?

Day 1 of the Trump Administration: the spirit of cooperation was in the air

Roe V. Wade will continue to prevent this "Kumbaya Moment".

 

[RockyTop85]

I agree. Both are guilty, and if you (the guest) want to be taken seriously about how this is an issue at large, you cant spend your whole 6 minutes talking about one side. Because it came across as it's a major R issue, while barey there for the Ds, and it's only a D issue cause the Rs started it.

It's like the Biden ads, not sure they are still on, but he was arguing we needed to get rid of the partisanship in DC and tone back the language. Then he spends a minute attacking Trump calling him all sorts of stuff.

I’m not sure how one could argue that Trump, who seems to be an embodiment of the “democrats are evil” mentality on the fringe right (See, e.g. finger pointing in response to my posts in this thread).

That said, if the guest’s overall premise is valid, then I think I have to assume that the argument can be made that Biden can be said to have gone beyond fair criticisms of Trump’s lack of fitness for the position. And Biden’s behavior towards Trump has not always lived up to a message of reunification.

His behavior towards critics at campaign stops during the primary and, recently, towards the CBS reporter seem like more fertile ground for those criticisms.

It’s why I said Buttigieg did the reunification platform better than Biden in the Primary. You rarely caught Pete going beyond the issue being discussed and any sharpness that was delivered from him was generally in the context of the issue being debated (owning Warren and Sanders on their hypocritical purity tests).

Whether he will/would govern that way or whether there would be a receptive Republican Party, I’m not sure.

 

[RockyTop85]

That link was supposed to show me what?

Did you already forget what question you asked?

 

[Carl Pickens]

The Trump presidency has been terrible for my family. My parents have the version of TDS where they endlessly defend Trump and troll the left and my 4 sisters (2 of whom are conservatives) have the version of TDS where they can't tolerate my parents' trolling. It really sucks. All 6 kids have unfollowed my parents on social media because it's just constant politics and trolling. Every time I see my Mom, she's telling me about her lifelong friends and favorite cousins, etc. who are no longer friends with her. My sister is gay and my Mom posted something that was an attack against Biden where the crux of the joke was he's gay, and my sister took offense. When she called attention to it, instead of saying "I didn't think of it that way." my Mom lamented the death of comedy. They're not on speaking terms now.

I just had a long drive with my Mom where she introspectively said something along the lines of "I'm not ready for the Savior to come. I don't like who I've become. I'm part of the divisiveness." but then I check her FB feed the next week and it's just more trolling. It truly is TDS. She can't help herself.

It's so stupid. I can't believe I live in a world where I'd say this, but I hope Biden wins for my family's sake. And no, I won't vote for him.

I don’t think that will help the family, but you probably know much better than I do. My parents have passed, but I was the only republican in my family. My dad and brother were in the UAW union. Politically, they all thought I was the devil.

 

[Grand Vol]

So...

Does President Trump calling CNN "dumb bastards" fall into this?

Because it was hilarious.

 

[RockyTop85]

How about limiting it to only those who have positions of power within the Democrat Party and can actually do something towards "working together" and have shown an inclination to do so by their actions not just words? Biden?

Yes, I know who you were talking about. So where are these "moderates" who want to work with the other party?

Are these some of them?

Day 1 of the Trump Administration: the spirit of cooperation was in the air

Roe V. Wade will continue to prevent this "Kumbaya Moment".

How about you define what you would consider to be actions evincing an “inclination towards working together.”

 

[Hunerwadel]

It's part of the social media/internet problem. Or at least it all exacerbates the issue, going both ways.

Humans naturally get more communication from people in face to face encounters than just the spoken message. Tone, facial expressions, body posture, eye contact, etc all tell us subconsciously that this is a human we are speaking with and we naturally empathize at least a bit. Remove that connection and we naturally treat people as just avatars instead of real people.

Another for instance is the Off Topic Thread, @luthervol gets hated on out here. But in there sharing details about his kids, or chili, he is treated with respect. Because it's a natural response like the above. The details make it difficult to assume the worst because we dont get to "fill in the blanks" as much.

It's all part of tribalism, digital or otherwise. It's as natural as breathing for leaders to dehumanize their opponents or outside enemies. It makes it that much easier to sell their positive traits if you only have negative associations with the other.

It's like racism or most other real "isms". They stem from ignorance and lack of open interaction.

Both parties shape it, push their followers to use it, and directly use it themselves.

You hid one mankind's great flaws. We not only demean our enemies but often those who are just different. Gay, black, white, different religion, atheist, wealthy, poor or just ugly. If we can ever put our humanity behind us we might one day realize our potential. We're going to have to be more than we are now to become truly civilized.

 

[hog88]

Did you already forget what question you asked?

Nope and that link didn't answer it.

 

[Hunerwadel]

So...

Does President Trump calling CNN "dumb bastards" fall into this?

Because it was hilarious.

I'm not sure Donnie has ever said any thing hilarious or actually funny?

 

[Grand Vol]

I'm not sure Donnie has ever said any thing hilarious or actually funny?

Well, that's because you really dislike him.

Trump has his moments of humor, but it's really situational and more sarcastic than normal. Kind of like British humor to an extent. But he's not really a "funny guy." Though I think even you can admit you chuckled at his "because you'd be in jail" quip aimed at Hillary during one of the 2016 debates.

But let's face facts, other than Reagan, we really haven't had a President with the ability to make people laugh easily in the modern era. Sure, you have the Correspondents Dinner where they tell jokes (or did) but it didn't come naturally to any of them except Reagan.

 

[RockyTop85]

Nope and that link didn't answer it.

Not by itself, but if you were actually interested in knowing the answer instead of just making embarrassingly bad arguments, you could figure it out.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Well, that's because you really dislike him.

Trump has his moments of humor, but it's really situational and more sarcastic than normal. Kind of like British humor to an extent. But he's not really a "funny guy." Though I think even you can admit you chuckled at his "because you'd be in jail" quip aimed at Hillary during one of the 2016 debates.

But let's face facts, other than Reagan, we really haven't had a President with the ability to make people laugh easily in the modern era. Sure, you have the Correspondents Dinner where they tell jokes (or did) but it didn't come naturally to any of them except Reagan.

And the "because nobody shows up" quip directed at Biden.

 

[hog88]

Not by itself, but if you were actually interested in knowing the answer instead of just making embarrassingly bad arguments, you could figure it out.

I asked who is Biden's base and you posted a link with primary results by state. How does that answer the question of who is Biden's base?

 

[LouderVol]

I’m not sure how one could argue that Trump, who seems to be an embodiment of the “democrats are evil” mentality on the fringe right (See, e.g. finger pointing in response to my posts in this thread).

That said, if the guest’s overall premise is valid, then I think I have to assume that the argument can be made that Biden can be said to have gone beyond fair criticisms of Trump’s lack of fitness for the position. And Biden’s behavior towards Trump has not always lived up to a message of reunification.

His behavior towards critics at campaign stops during the primary and, recently, towards the CBS reporter seem like more fertile ground for those criticisms.

It’s why I said Buttigieg did the reunification platform better than Biden in the Primary. You rarely caught Pete going beyond the issue being discussed and any sharpness that was delivered from him was generally in the context of the issue being debated (owning Warren and Sanders on their hypocritical purity tests).

Whether he will/would govern that way or whether there would be a receptive Republican Party, I’m not sure.

I feel like I am supposed to respond to your first paragraph, but it seems incomplete?

I agree that Pete handled himself well in what i saw. With the plus of sticking mostly to policy. Regardless that it was policy i mostly dont agree with.

I think Biden is in the old person area, even without full blown dementia, where he is nice as long as you are agreeing with him and everything is going well. Once you get him off script he reverts. Which is why he disappears for days at a time. Could be coaching, rest, or just cool off. I wont pretend to know, but he cant handle pressure.

Trump is pretty much the same as biden. Difference is that is where he wants to be. Whether that's a winning strategy it is a strategy.

To me Trump is just saying the quiet part outloud. Playing to his demographics openly. The Rs 10-20 years ago didnt know how to do this too well. The Ds started it, in my observation of 15 years, with the racism stuff for Obama. Where Obama might have been weak they covered with the race card. But they were covert about it, "politician" about it. Trump just flaunts it. It's why I think you see people like luther saying he cares about what Trump says at least as much as what he does. Imo it's because he flipped the dehumanizing language script back.

 

[37L1]

How about you define what you would consider to be actions evincing an “inclination towards working together.”

I'll go with whatever you think is fair. Not going to take that tact with you in this discourse. I'm hoping you can be convincing but there are so many different areas where it appears positions are entrenched. 2nd Amendment, immigration, climate change, abortion, SCOTUS, health care, just to name a few.

I'm ready to listen.

 

[LouderVol]

Ultimately I think the dehumanizing speech is used because it's easier. It's easier to belittle the messenger to avoid addressing the message. Why challenge you beliefs or stance or party when you can just poke holes?

 

[hog88]

Ultimately I think the dehumanizing speech is used because it's easier. It's easier to belittle the messenger to avoid addressing the message. Why challenge you beliefs or stance or party when you can just poke holes?

That and for the soundbites to be tweeted and retweeted.