Examples of groups going after there opponents are the Red sox having a Yankee hater club,the yankees having a Red sox haters club, the Obama campaign targeting everything Bush did wrong,The McCain campaign calling Obama a communist, The atheist targeting contradictions in the Bible, the Christian pointing out science against evolution, the liberal calling conservatives war mongers, and the conservatives calling the liberals baby killers.
The mentality I believe is "If the opposing side is an injustice than my side is a justice." So by demonizing or making the other side look stupid your side feels better and like they are superior. This bully tactic is used by almost every human being on the planet in some way.
Alternatively since it is within every human being the capacity to not use this tactic in a debate, politics, or religion you almost say that the other side is just as if not more valid than you because now they appear flawless. It isn't exactly true and the logic isn't there but for some reason there is something programmed in the subconscious mind of most of us that in the above situations that logic takes place.
One quote by Jason Pitz-Waters that is so true is "If I could outlaw one rhetorical and stylistic device I think it would be comparing your ideological opponent to Hitler, Nazis, and fascists. It cheapens the true horrors of WWII and the Holocaust, and instantly destroys any chance for a civilized debate. The political left and right both employs this "scorched earth" tactic of demonizing the other side, and some religious leaders aren't much better."
There are also rhetoric fallacies such as The Genetic fallacy ,which points out that sometimes when an individual tries to show there side as valid they make a claim that may or may not be true and support it with something that actually doesn't support the original claim.
A book titled Journal for The Theory of Social Behavior points out that this behavioral process has practically remained untouched in the psychological community yet it plays a great role in the U.S. Intellectual debates try to avoid this tactic but I don't know how avoidable it is.
Is there a way for society to stop verbally bullying each other? Can you find places in your life that you disagree strongly with the opposing side and quietly think of it as inferior? Is there a hope for these problems to be resolved? The first question is probably is a no, the third question is more or less for the second question which is the part you can decide on.
So the differences in viewpoints is valid but the demonizing and bullying is not. I find myself having a hard time trying not to mentally look down upon the opposing side regardless of what the issue is. It is impossible not to chose a side, but to defend your side without attacking the other side is an obstacle.
I find that I use this bully tactic a lot even without realizing it. It's often a way to make yourself look better in the short run until people analyze what you're doing. I do believe that's it's wrong to use it in political campaigning etc, but in my everyday life I must admit that I find it useful. Although I do this pretty frequently I realize that it's wrong to use it to get that extra push forward. Truth often speaks the loudest I believe and if you're truthful and straight forward people will notice, and thus your position will be strong regardless.
ReplyDeleteThis negative thinking is so popular in America. From the day of birth, we are force-fed this concept of judging others. It is human nature. Trying not to think like this is like trying not to breathe. But, it gives ourselves identity, understanding, and a bonding with those who do agree on a particular topic. I would have to say that every human being wants to be understood. They want the world to see them for who they are and what they believe. Unfortunately, Understanding and judging are connected at the hip. People cannot have that feeling of connection unless there are others who are excluded from the group. A sad truth everyone must deal with
ReplyDelete"Destruction is easier than creation. Offense easier than defense." I know I have heard both of those said time and again, and they certainly apply. When we begin arguing with emotion, we slip directly to the "most effective" method, by which it seems to be the easiest and most ethos damaging. It IS harder to defend your own case, because we assume from experience that if you start defending your own case, you will be attacked with forms of logic that go around your point, or be misinterpreted, or bounded with no logic at all. We automatically assume that the other side isn't going to "play fair", so if we want to get any points in, or defend ourselves, we have to stoop to whatever level the lowest person is willing to play on. Some people go outside at USF and try to argue with the offensive Christian preachers who call everyone names and misquote the Bible. They start by trying to be reasonable and question what they are saying. Once the preachers respond though, it is usually with a verbal attack, or a line of logic that seems twisted just to suit their views. Eventually, students give up trying to actually debate and talk, and just jeer, verbally assault, and demarcate them as crazy *insert-profanity-here*. That, to a magnified extent, is what happens every time we start an argument. We just jump ahead to the low level right away most of the time, because (we think) won't it get there quickly anyway?
ReplyDelete