The Effects of Dehumanizing Language in Political Discourse

[RockyTop85]

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?

Which part of “Not by itself” are you struggling with?

If you can’t figure out the rest of the answer, I’m not interested in your take.

 

[hog88]

Which part of “Not by itself” are you struggling with?

If you can’t figure out the rest of the answer, I’m not interested in your take.

LOL

 

[n_huffhines]

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.

This is a new phenomenon, seemingly a courtesy of the current POTUS. When Obama was president, my parents couldn't believe a president would say something so outrageous and in your face as "You lost. Elections have consequences." Now they don't bat an eye when their guy implies a debate moderator is having her period. When Bill Clinton was president, they were completely disgusted by his philandering and lack of morals. But banging gross porn stars is now fine as long as they can't prove you did it illegally. When the Bushes were president, they were pissed about spending and bailouts and new taxes/tariffs, etc. None of that stuff matters to them anymore. It's all defensible. It's unbelievable to me and the rest of the kids. We don't understand what happened to them.

Maybe it won't change back. Maybe what's changed is their age and they're just losing it, but I'll hold out hope that it's TDS.

 

[VolStrom]

LOL

So what he answered was "will you pack the court" with a "I'll answer the people after the election"

 

[05_never_again]

The current media age we find ourselves in is both unique and something we've seen before at the same time.

Social media and the internet are unique in that it allows people to curate their own news feeds and information sources, and you are able to do it so easily, conveniently, and quickly that I think most people don't even realize they are doing it. You never have to come across facts or opinions that conflict with what you believe if you don't want to. The bubble is particularly powerful when you don't even realize that it is a bubble.

However, at the same time, the current bubble-like media environment isn't unprecedented. It's actually a throwback to the days before mass media (TV and radio), and before newspapers had achieved wide national distribution. In those days, news organizations catered to very specific audiences and were tabloid-like publications that did nothing but throw red meat and propaganda. William Randolph Hearst was great at it.

 

[midnight orange]

This is a new phenomenon, seemingly a courtesy of the current POTUS. When Obama was president, my parents couldn't believe a president would say something so outrageous and in your face as "You lost. Elections have consequences." Now they don't bat an eye when their guy implies a debate moderator is having her period. When Bill Clinton was president, they were completely disgusted by his philandering and lack of morals. But banging gross porn stars is now fine as long as they can't prove you did it illegally. When the Bushes were president, they were pissed about spending and bailouts and new taxes/tariffs, etc. None of that stuff matters to them anymore. It's all defensible. It's unbelievable to me and the rest of the kids. We don't understand what happened to them.

Maybe it won't change back. Maybe what's changed is their age and they're just losing it, but I'll hold out hope that it's TDS.

It really has become about the team. No matter how much evidence you give to show that there is the square root of jacksh!t difference between Republican and Democrat presidents, they still huddle up. It’s not just your parents.

 

[05_never_again]

This is a new phenomenon, seemingly a courtesy of the current POTUS. When Obama was president, my parents couldn't believe a president would say something so outrageous and in your face as "You lost. Elections have consequences." Now they don't bat an eye when their guy implies a debate moderator is having her period. When Bill Clinton was president, they were completely disgusted by his philandering and lack of morals. But banging gross porn stars is now fine as long as they can't prove you did it illegally. When the Bushes were president, they were pissed about spending and bailouts and new taxes/tariffs, etc. None of that stuff matters to them anymore. It's all defensible. It's unbelievable to me and the rest of the kids. We don't understand what happened to them.

Maybe it won't change back. Maybe what's changed is their age and they're just losing it, but I'll hold out hope that it's TDS.

It's because they see themselves first and foremost politically as a member of a team/tribe, as opposing to having any sort of underlying coherent political views based upon a set of first principles.

 

[luthervol]

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.

I would say the vast majority of Biden's base is made up of the "anybody but Trump" segment.
Dems have shown a far greater desire than repubs to work together.
Trump's election was a big "no thank you" to the idea of compromise.
There will be far more compromise under Biden than was ever seen under Trump.

 

[midnight orange]

It's because they see themselves first and foremost politically as a member of a team/tribe, as opposing to having any sort of underlying coherent political views based upon a set of first principles.

My family pressures me to go vote like it is worth something. I could not imagine the guilt I would have if I were to get in a car accident or something on the way to do something so useless as voting. I wouldn’t be able to live with myself. Especially for the baffoons we’ve got running.

 

[luthervol]

So what he answered was "will you pack the court" with a "I'll answer the people after the election"

The new precedent created by the repubs is to do whatever is legally allowed in order to stack the court in your favor.
The dems may follow suit.

 

[n_huffhines]

It's because they see themselves first and foremost politically as a member of a team/tribe, as opposing to having any sort of underlying coherent political views based upon a set of first principles.

Yeah, you're right on with this. They've always been in tribal mode, but for whatever reason the division in the Trump age is more consuming than ever. It's a weird form of tribalism where what you aren't matters more than what you are. They're not proud Republicans. They're just proudly not Democrats. Literally anytime a liberal comes up (it could be an old friend, an actor, or whatever), they have to point out with disdain/disappointment that the individual is a leftist. It cannot be left unsaid. It's bizarre.

 

[hog88]

I would say the vast majority of Biden's base is made up of the "anybody but Trump" segment.
Dems have shown a far greater desire than repubs to work together.
Trump's election was a big "no thank you" to the idea of compromise.
There will be far more compromise under Biden than was ever seen under Trump.

I agree that the majority of Biden voters are the "anyone other than Trump" crowd but to me that isn't a base. A base is the people that would vote for you regardless who the opponent is. You are the Dem base, you will vote for whoever they run.

Dems have shown zero desire to work with Rs going back to when Obama was elected and I see no evidence that a Harris/Pelosi administration would be any different.

 

[05_never_again]

My family pressures me to go vote like it is worth something. I could not imagine the guilt I would have if I were to get in a car accident or something on the way to do something so useless as voting. I wouldn’t be able to live with myself. Especially for the baffoons we’ve got running.

People vote for the same reason they pick up a piece of litter on the sidewalk. Does it ultimately matter? No, but it makes people feel good, like they've done their civic duty.

 

[05_never_again]

Yeah, you're right on with this. They've always been in tribal mode, but for whatever reason the division in the Trump age is more consuming than ever. It's a weird form of tribalism where what you aren't matters more than what you are. They're not proud Republicans. They're just proudly not Democrats. Literally anytime a liberal comes up (it could be an old friend, an actor, or whatever), they have to point out with disdain/disappointment that the individual is a leftist. It cannot be left unsaid. It's bizarre.

Do your parents use Facebook? I'm typically hesitant to make statements like "this problem is 100% caused by X," but I do think that social media has an impact that spreads throughout the culture, and Facebook in particular has had an impact on that demographic. That demographic really started to get comfy with FB and start using it in the late 2000s/early 2010s to keep up with friends and family, and it seems like it really started to become a turbocharged political cesspool right after that. It reminds me a lot of chain emails that became really popular in the 1990s once the internet started getting into people's homes. Once they got comfortable with using it, they started using it for things other than looking at baby pictures, like follow the news.

There are lots of people in this country who don't use social media, but pretty much all the opinion-makers and "thought leaders" use it. It's the ocean they swim in. Those folks, whether they know it or not (and most of them probably do), operate in a bubble too. I'm not sure if you've heard Matt Taibbi speak about it, but he's had some really good interviews where he talks about just how insular the media industry is, to the point where most of them don't even personally know or associate with anybody who remotely disagrees with them politically. They spend all day churning out material that is red meat to a political base and they get the desired reaction, which just intensifies the bubble.

If the opinion-makers themselves operate in that fashion, and the over-heatedness in the rhetoric that goes along with it, it's inevitable before it trickles out into the population.

 

[n_huffhines]

Do your parents use Facebook? I'm typically hesitant to make statements like "this problem is 100% caused by X," but I do think that social media has an impact that spreads throughout the culture, and Facebook in particular has had an impact on that demographic. That demographic really started to get comfy with FB and start using it in the late 2000s/early 2010s to keep up with friends and family, and it seems like it really started to become a turbocharged political cesspool right after that. It reminds me a lot of chain emails that became really popular in the 1990s once the internet started getting into people's homes. Once they got comfortable with using it, they started using it for things other than looking at baby pictures, like follow the news.

There are lots of people in this country who don't use social media, but pretty much all the opinion-makers and "thought leaders" use it. It's the ocean they swim in. Those folks, whether they know it or not (and most of them probably do), operate in a bubble too. I'm not sure if you've heard Matt Taibbi speak about it, but he's had some really good interviews where he talks about just how insular the media industry is, to the point where most of them don't even personally know or associate with anybody who remotely disagrees with them politically. They spend all day churning out material that is red meat to a political base and they get the desired reaction, which just intensifies the bubble.

If the opinion-makers themselves operate in that fashion, and the over-heatedness in the rhetoric that goes along with it, it's inevitable before it trickles out into the population.

Yeah, it's facebook. I love facebook because it's how I keep up with family and friends that I otherwise wouldn't keep up with, but now I have so many of them on ignore because the only thing they use FB for is to post about politics. I can't tell you how many friends from HS who never post have appeared out of nowhere after years of absence to say who they are voting for. Cool. I don't know what state you're in, if you're married, have kids, etc. but glad to hear you like/dislike Trump, man. Maybe a secular meme next time, buddy?

 

[RockyTop85]

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.

Ok. That’s fair.

Edit: Whoops. Started responding to this and got distracted. Brb.

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.

First paragraph is just an abstraction. Should be read with the second paragraph to say: I can see a justification for Biden’s behavior re: Trump, but it would invalidate the premise of the article if I accept that justification.

I‘m not arguing that democrats don’t use dehumanizing language. I don’t know who started it. Seems like a chicken and egg debate. Rush Limbaugh has been saying irrecerent, dehumanizing **** for as long as I can remember.

But, I disagree that Trump and Biden are even remotely close to the same. That’s insanity. It’s one thing for the party to have ass holes Shaun King or Rush Limbaugh. It’s wholly different to make them the face of your political movement and elect them president.

 

[RockyTop85]

So what he answered was "will you pack the court" with a "I'll answer the people after the election"

This is the worst analogy I’ve ever seen.

If you slept through the democratic primaries, why would I be interested in explaining to you what happened so I can get your take?

 

[RockyTop85]

I would say the vast majority of Biden's base is made up of the "anybody but Trump" segment.
Dems have shown a far greater desire than repubs to work together.
Trump's election was a big "no thank you" to the idea of compromise.
There will be far more compromise under Biden than was ever seen under Trump.

Disagree. The base is defined by the primary. We agree: the moral failing of republicans was nominating trump, not electing him.

Anybody but Trump wasn’t a criteria in the dem primary. So why choose Biden over Bernie?

Why Buttigieg before Biden? What did Buttigieg and Biden have in common that none of the others did?

 

[LouderVol]

Yeah, you're right on with this. They've always been in tribal mode, but for whatever reason the division in the Trump age is more consuming than ever. It's a weird form of tribalism where what you aren't matters more than what you are. They're not proud Republicans. They're just proudly not Democrats. Literally anytime a liberal comes up (it could be an old friend, an actor, or whatever), they have to point out with disdain/disappointment that the individual is a leftist. It cannot be left unsaid. It's bizarre.

I dont think it's any worse under Trump than it was Obama. Again the dems were age ole politicians and knew how to hide how divisive they were. They used pretty words to split the nation, so it gets overlooked.

That was the first time I started experiencing the attitude of "you disagree with me therefore you are morally wrong".

K town still takes any critique of obama policy as racist. And he wasnt only one.

If you cant have a policy discussion without that type of rhetoric where else is there to go?

 

[RockyTop85]

@37L1

Ok. Back.

The thing is you have now and will have a number of democrats representing conservative states. Manchin, Sinema, Tester, looking like Kelly will be there as well. Doug Jones as well in the unlikely event that he returns. Jaime Harrison may be a different story given SC’s demographics but his debate performance the other night did not sound like a Bernie bro. In fact, he talked about this very subject when Graham called democrats “nuts.” If a Democrat were able to win one of the GA seats or if Mike Espy were to win in MS. The point being: several democrats have a reason to compromise.

Have they?

The ones who are presently in the senate have. Tester and Sinnema have cosponsored several bipartisan bills, including border security legislation.

Jones and Manchin voted for Tim Scott’s police reform bill and have cosponsored legislation with republicans.

Going back to a time when the senate/house were consolidated with a different party from the presidency, And Cory Booker had a reputation for being willing to work on bipartisan bills. The house is the same story. Even AOC has cosponsored bills with republicans.

Feinstein is taking incoming right now from the loud mouthed minority for being nice to Lindsey Graham and ACB.

The head winds are changing because Biden and Buttigieg were successful in the primary on a reconciliation platform. If Biden wins, the electorate will have spoken. There will be a mandate. Either side can ignore it to its own peril.

You can also see the same realization in the Republican side with Sasse and Cornyn trying to take exits off the Trump turnpike.

 

[n_huffhines]

I dont think it's any worse under Trump than it was Obama. Again the dems were age ole politicians and knew how to hide how divisive they were. They used pretty words to split the nation, so it gets overlooked.

That was the first time I started experiencing the attitude of "you disagree with me therefore you are morally wrong".

K town still takes any critique of obama policy as racist. And he wasnt only one.

If you cant have a policy discussion without that type of rhetoric where else is there to go?

Not sure that your K-town anecdote supports your thesis. Some people on an anonymous message board will always be there to use harsh rhetoric. My position that the division is more consuming than ever is based on how politicized everything is right now. Sports, for one. I don't bring up sports in casual conversation because I don't want to run the risk of it turning into a political discussion. My facebook feed would be unbearable if I hadn't started ignoring people. I know so many people who had nothing to do with politics 5 years ago and suddenly find themselves in a battle of good vs. evil and they can't STFU about it.

Maybe it's different in my corner of the world, but it wasn't like this at all 5 years ago.

 

[37L1]

@37L1

Ok. Back.

The thing is you have now and will have a number of democrats representing conservative states. Manchin, Sinema, Tester, looking like Kelly will be there as well. Doug Jones as well in the unlikely event that he returns. Jaime Harrison may be a different story given SC’s demographics but his debate performance the other night did not sound like a Bernie bro. In fact, he talked about this very subject when Graham called democrats “nuts.” If a Democrat were able to win one of the GA seats or if Mike Espy were to win in MS. The point being: several democrats have a reason to compromise.

Have they?

The ones who are presently in the senate have. Tester and Sinnema have cosponsored several bipartisan bills, including border security legislation.

Jones and Manchin voted for Tim Scott’s police reform bill and have cosponsored legislation with republicans.

Going back to a time when the senate/house were consolidated with a different party from the presidency, And Cory Booker had a reputation for being willing to work on bipartisan bills. The house is the same story. Even AOC has cosponsored bills with republicans.

Feinstein is taking incoming right now from the loud mouthed minority for being nice to Lindsey Graham and ACB.

The head winds are changing because Biden and Buttigieg were successful in the primary on a reconciliation platform. If Biden wins, the electorate will have spoken. There will be a mandate. Either side can ignore it to its own peril.

You can also see the same realization in the Republican side with Sasse and Cornyn trying to take exits off the Trump turnpike.

Yes I see that there are still some members of both parties that at least try to work some together. Sinnema for one, has surprised me. Manchin has always played the game based on who his constituency is. I'm not sold on Sasse, he was a little late to the party and the cynical part of me thinks that he has seen the polls and is trying to save his ass more than all of a sudden achieving enlightenment.

Tim Scott's police reform bill was defeated, I believe, by the Democrats.

Buttigieg has recently made some pretty radical statements regarding Judge Barrett. Was his reconciliation platform an act or is it that he has a hot button issue regarding how he thinks Judge Barrett will impact gay marriage? The cynical side of me says "Why not both?"

Do you really think though, that they have any chance with any of the hot button issues I noted in a previous post?

Do you think Biden is strong enough to tell the radicals on the left to STFU so that he can work on reconciliation? Do you think any of the current leaders of the Democrats in Congress are wanting to work with the Republicans to solve some of these issues other than getting their way?

The cynical side of me believes that a politician will say anything to get elected and make deals with the devil for the same result. Biden has been a politician in Washingtom DC for 47 years and he has played and is playing the game. He gets elected, whatever deals he has made will determine who gets what and where we go from here.

I don't trust politicians.

They are all political animals and sometimes have to consider the make up of the voters who put them there. Too bad it isn't all the time, so I get what you are trying to allude to.

I just don't see the politicians you listed, as well as Biden, if elected, bucking the Democrat establishment, their agenda and their goals. As long as the congressional leadership is made up of Pelosi and Schumer, and all the committee heads are the like of Schiff and Waters, nothing is going to change in Washington.

 

[1972 Grad]

Yes I see that there are still some members of both parties that at least try to work some together. Sinnema for one, has surprised me. Manchin has always played the game based on who his constituency is. I'm not sold on Sasse, he was a little late to the party and the cynical part of me thinks that he has seen the polls and is trying to save his ass more than all of a sudden achieving enlightenment.

Tim Scott's police reform bill was defeated, I believe, by the Democrats.

Buttigieg has recently made some pretty radical statements regarding Judge Barrett. Was his reconciliation platform an act or is it that he has a hot button issue regarding how he thinks Judge Barrett will impact gay marriage? The cynical side of me says "Why not both?"

Do you really think though, that they have any chance with any of the hot button issues I noted in a previous post?

Do you think Biden is strong enough to tell the radicals on the left to STFU so that he can work on reconciliation? Do you think any of the current leaders of the Democrats in Congress are wanting to work with the Republicans to solve some of these issues other than getting their way?

The cynical side of me believes that a politician will say anything to get elected and make deals with the devil for the same result. Biden has been a politician in Washingtom DC for 47 years and he has played and is playing the game. He gets elected, whatever deals he has made will determine who gets what and where we go from here.

I don't trust politicians.

They are all political animals and sometimes have to consider the make up of the voters who put them there. Too bad it isn't all the time, so I get what you are trying to allude to.

I just don't see the politicians you listed, as well as Biden, if elected, bucking the Democrat establishment, their agenda and their goals. As long as the congressional leadership is made up of Pelosi and Schumer, and all the committee heads are the like of Schiff and Waters, nothing is going to change in Washington.

He is a phony little priss ass.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

This is a new phenomenon, seemingly a courtesy of the current POTUS. When Obama was president, my parents couldn't believe a president would say something so outrageous and in your face as "You lost. Elections have consequences." Now they don't bat an eye when their guy implies a debate moderator is having her period. When Bill Clinton was president, they were completely disgusted by his philandering and lack of morals. But banging gross porn stars is now fine as long as they can't prove you did it illegally. When the Bushes were president, they were pissed about spending and bailouts and new taxes/tariffs, etc. None of that stuff matters to them anymore. It's all defensible. It's unbelievable to me and the rest of the kids. We don't understand what happened to them.

Maybe it won't change back. Maybe what's changed is their age and they're just losing it, but I'll hold out hope that it's TDS.

People’s minds have been completely warped by social media. It has gotten exponentially worse in the last five years. The Social Dilemma should be required viewing before returning to the internet.

People need to understand they hold the key to solving a lot of these issues by simply getting off social media. They are the commodity, they have a lot more power than they think.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

It’s pretty easy to act like a douche bag when you’re a keyboard or mobile phone warrior spewing your vitriol without risk of a punch in the face coming back at you

This. So much this. Bright side I guess, is that I would probably have battery charges pending in a half dozen states if you could throat punch somebody through the internet. I dont really let people get under my skin anymore...but the 1st couple years on VN ....I took things way too personally, and let strangers make me angry.

Wise words I heard long ago:

Nobody can hurt you, make you angry, embarrass you etc unless you ALLOW them to do so. You needlessly empower other people when you let them change your mood