CDZ Duhumanization & Partisan Politics

[candycorn]

research indicates perceived dehumanization prompts dehumanization as a response
Well, yeah! It's difficult to empathize with someone who thinks you're evil.

The question here is, though, whether they really think you're evil, or if they're just using the notion as a crutch, an excuse, a utililty.
.

The left was calling me evil long before I started getting annoyed enough about it to say anything back. I'm white and male, you see.

White Males: the same guys who codified blacks as being 3/5 of a person in the founding documents of the nation?

Yes, as opposed to black slave owners who codified them only on sales ledgers. What's the difference? It was the thinking of the times.

White Males: the same guys who codified blacks as being 3/5 of a person in the founding documents of the nation?

Yeah and people used to think the sun was a god and the earth was flat. What's your point?

Whites were “dehumanizing” others well long before you were around.

Ask the Aztec's enemies how human they felt. Or ask the black slavers how human they thought their prey were.

You are singling one group out purely for political/moral gain.

The person I responded to singled out the one group.

That was in the specific context of current progressive thought. You just pulled a strawman out as a counter as opposed to responding to the actual comment.

He was talking about his view of what is going on right now, you decided to take the easy way out and go with "whites did X first" when they really didn't do it first, because people have been doing it since one caveman argued with another and was losing.

He played the race card.

 

[martybegan]

research indicates perceived dehumanization prompts dehumanization as a response
Well, yeah! It's difficult to empathize with someone who thinks you're evil.

The question here is, though, whether they really think you're evil, or if they're just using the notion as a crutch, an excuse, a utililty.
.

The left was calling me evil long before I started getting annoyed enough about it to say anything back. I'm white and male, you see.

White Males: the same guys who codified blacks as being 3/5 of a person in the founding documents of the nation?

Yes, as opposed to black slave owners who codified them only on sales ledgers. What's the difference? It was the thinking of the times.

Yeah and people used to think the sun was a god and the earth was flat. What's your point?

Whites were “dehumanizing” others well long before you were around.

Ask the Aztec's enemies how human they felt. Or ask the black slavers how human they thought their prey were.

You are singling one group out purely for political/moral gain.

The person I responded to singled out the one group.

That was in the specific context of current progressive thought. You just pulled a strawman out as a counter as opposed to responding to the actual comment.

He was talking about his view of what is going on right now, you decided to take the easy way out and go with "whites did X first" when they really didn't do it first, because people have been doing it since one caveman argued with another and was losing.

He played the race card.

So progressives don't see white males as oppressors?

 

[Mac1958]

Amazing to watch.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Old as the hills.... meaning, this is human behavior 101a.
What would be more interesting is how our nation, consisting mostly of people with like wants and needs, carry the same goals and primary beliefs, can so easily be convinced that we are not alike.
The media, our education system and politicians have done a masterful job indeed of dividing the people.
Works like a charm.

Sure, that's been a huge element in this. People with the ability to communicate to masses, who have a vested professional interest in dividing us, getting their way.

Another element is the last sentence in the OP, essentially momentum: Once this process is underway it may become self-reinforcing, as research indicates perceived dehumanization prompts dehumanization as a response
.

Absolutely.
I will take for instance, rightwinger or OldLady
If I was to sit in their home for dinner, or they in mine... I guarantee we would get along fine. We could talk about any number of topics, and would agree or mostly agree on better than 90% on discussions of values, raising children, work ethics, basic morals etc. etc. etc.
But... the news media, politicians, entertainment industry all have us going at each other as if we are not alike. Indeed, convinced through generalities that we are completely different. Even evil.
We are not.
We are almost completely the same except for a party affiliation that has little effect on our lives, though convinced those party differences have massive differences by whatever news media we listen to.

Not since the 1960s has this country been this divided, and the result is the wolves have taken over our governments, they represent the super-wealthy and super corporations...while little by little extracting our wealth into their hands.

I agree that we would get along fine, but I need to correct one thing: I do not have a party affiliation and I am a long cry from carrying rightwinger's banner. I just usually fall on the left side of the fence.

Not really pointing you out specifically, but making an example of how the vast-vast majority of each "side" - are the actually very much like-minded.... just convinced we are not by those who are determined to keep us as foes.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The question here is, though, whether they really think you're evil, or if they're just using the notion as a crutch, an excuse, a utililty.
.

The left was calling me evil long before I started getting annoyed enough about it to say anything back. I'm white and male, you see.

White Males: the same guys who codified blacks as being 3/5 of a person in the founding documents of the nation?

Yes, as opposed to black slave owners who codified them only on sales ledgers. What's the difference? It was the thinking of the times.

Whites were “dehumanizing” others well long before you were around.

Ask the Aztec's enemies how human they felt. Or ask the black slavers how human they thought their prey were.

You are singling one group out purely for political/moral gain.

The person I responded to singled out the one group.

That was in the specific context of current progressive thought. You just pulled a strawman out as a counter as opposed to responding to the actual comment.

He was talking about his view of what is going on right now, you decided to take the easy way out and go with "whites did X first" when they really didn't do it first, because people have been doing it since one caveman argued with another and was losing.

He played the race card.

So progressives don't see white males as oppressors?

Leftist.
Leftist is a new set of people, that truly ARE DIFFERENT.
Liberals and conservatives share many-many of the same goals and desires... just disagree on solutions thereof.
Leftist are very different. Leftist are not liberals, and not even progressives.
Leftist are a tiny subset of the liberal side, yet through their loud voices and massive funding, have taken over the agenda of the left.
Only other liberals can stop their nonsense.

 

[candycorn]

The question here is, though, whether they really think you're evil, or if they're just using the notion as a crutch, an excuse, a utililty.
.

The left was calling me evil long before I started getting annoyed enough about it to say anything back. I'm white and male, you see.

White Males: the same guys who codified blacks as being 3/5 of a person in the founding documents of the nation?

Yes, as opposed to black slave owners who codified them only on sales ledgers. What's the difference? It was the thinking of the times.

Whites were “dehumanizing” others well long before you were around.

Ask the Aztec's enemies how human they felt. Or ask the black slavers how human they thought their prey were.

You are singling one group out purely for political/moral gain.

The person I responded to singled out the one group.

That was in the specific context of current progressive thought. You just pulled a strawman out as a counter as opposed to responding to the actual comment.

He was talking about his view of what is going on right now, you decided to take the easy way out and go with "whites did X first" when they really didn't do it first, because people have been doing it since one caveman argued with another and was losing.

He played the race card.

So progressives don't see white males as oppressors?

You’d have to poll progressives I imagine.

 

[night_son]

Found some fascinating, brand new research on behaviors in partisan politics. Obviously, partisans either consciously or subconsciously dehumanize their opponents so that their opponents are much easier to hate and attack. That's one of the many behaviors shared by partisans on both ends of the spectrum, and these studies suggest its negative effects. Here's research just published during the last month:

Partisan Dehumanization in American Politics

Understanding dehumanization in political contexts is important because the social psychology literature links dehumanization to a variety of negative outcomes, including moral disengagement, aggression, and even violence. In this manuscript, I discuss evidence of partisan dehumanization during the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign and demonstrate how a focus on dehumanization can expose new relationships between moral psychology and partisan identity. Using data from two surveys conducted in October of 2016, I show that partisans dehumanize their political opponents in both subtle and blatant ways. When I investigate the correlates of dehumanization, I find that partisans who blatantly dehumanize members of the opposing party prefer greater social distance from their political opponents, which is indicative of reduced interpersonal tolerance. I also find that blatant dehumanization is associated with perceptions of greater moral distance between the parties, which is indicative of moral disengagement. These results suggest that dehumanization can improve our understanding of negative partisanship and political polarization.

Partisan Dehumanization in American Politics - Heterodox Academy

Although the process of dehumanization has not received much attention in political science, it has received a good deal of attention within social psychology.

Nevertheless, research on dehumanization indicates that the process is associated with moral disengagement whereby a person or group are classified as less than human, and thus less deserving of moral consideration. In other words, when a rival person or group is dehumanized they are seen as undeserving of moral concern. When this occurs, unfair treatment, derogation, and even aggression are then easily justified and rationalized (see e.g., Ellemers 2017; Schwartz 2007). Once this process is underway it may become self-reinforcing, as research indicates perceived dehumanization prompts dehumanization as a response (Kteily, Hodson & Bruneau 2016).
.

Once again I agree with your post in spirit. In real world practice, however, I believe its timing is far too late. Normally I would ignore the grand relentless political theater as I've done in the past and chalk up most of the 24/7 partisan infighting hyperbole to the behavior described in your linked article. But we live in very unique times, historically speaking. Times which are perhaps unlike any other in human history for the attempts to regress the moral foundation of an entire civilization far back to an earlier age when public and political barbarism and savagery were hardly mentionable as they were the social norm. From this forced rebirth of Draconian Cultural Revolution has sprung, in my best estimate, a damn pressing need to oppose this would be end to modern Western Civilization at all costs. Attempts at sidelining or downplaying the pressing importance of that struggle is the last thing we need.

 

[Mac1958]

Found some fascinating, brand new research on behaviors in partisan politics. Obviously, partisans either consciously or subconsciously dehumanize their opponents so that their opponents are much easier to hate and attack. That's one of the many behaviors shared by partisans on both ends of the spectrum, and these studies suggest its negative effects. Here's research just published during the last month:

Partisan Dehumanization in American Politics

Understanding dehumanization in political contexts is important because the social psychology literature links dehumanization to a variety of negative outcomes, including moral disengagement, aggression, and even violence. In this manuscript, I discuss evidence of partisan dehumanization during the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign and demonstrate how a focus on dehumanization can expose new relationships between moral psychology and partisan identity. Using data from two surveys conducted in October of 2016, I show that partisans dehumanize their political opponents in both subtle and blatant ways. When I investigate the correlates of dehumanization, I find that partisans who blatantly dehumanize members of the opposing party prefer greater social distance from their political opponents, which is indicative of reduced interpersonal tolerance. I also find that blatant dehumanization is associated with perceptions of greater moral distance between the parties, which is indicative of moral disengagement. These results suggest that dehumanization can improve our understanding of negative partisanship and political polarization.

Partisan Dehumanization in American Politics - Heterodox Academy

Although the process of dehumanization has not received much attention in political science, it has received a good deal of attention within social psychology.

Nevertheless, research on dehumanization indicates that the process is associated with moral disengagement whereby a person or group are classified as less than human, and thus less deserving of moral consideration. In other words, when a rival person or group is dehumanized they are seen as undeserving of moral concern. When this occurs, unfair treatment, derogation, and even aggression are then easily justified and rationalized (see e.g., Ellemers 2017; Schwartz 2007). Once this process is underway it may become self-reinforcing, as research indicates perceived dehumanization prompts dehumanization as a response (Kteily, Hodson & Bruneau 2016).
.

Once again I agree with your post in spirit. In real world practice, however, I believe its timing is far too late. Normally I would ignore the grand relentless political theater as I've done in the past and chalk up most of the 24/7 partisan infighting hyperbole to the behavior described in your linked article. But we live in very unique times, historically speaking. Times which are perhaps unlike any other in human history for the attempts to regress the moral foundation of an entire civilization far back to an earlier age when public and political barbarism and savagery were hardly mentionable as they were the social norm. From this forced rebirth of Draconian Cultural Revolution has sprung, in my best estimate, a damn pressing need to oppose this would be end to modern Western Civilization at all costs. Attempts at sidelining or downplaying the pressing importance of that struggle is the last thing we need.

The bottom line, my concern is (a) whether there is a point of no return to all this, and (b) whether we have reached it.

My guess is that we have, and I'd sure love to be wrong. But this momentum is showing little indication of stopping. When any public voice of reason and moderation (and you'll still see a bit from both ends) appears, you'll see it either ignored, mocked or attacked.

Once those voices have been fully marginalized, this thing is over.
.

 

[martybegan]

The left was calling me evil long before I started getting annoyed enough about it to say anything back. I'm white and male, you see.

White Males: the same guys who codified blacks as being 3/5 of a person in the founding documents of the nation?

Yes, as opposed to black slave owners who codified them only on sales ledgers. What's the difference? It was the thinking of the times.

Ask the Aztec's enemies how human they felt. Or ask the black slavers how human they thought their prey were.

You are singling one group out purely for political/moral gain.

The person I responded to singled out the one group.

That was in the specific context of current progressive thought. You just pulled a strawman out as a counter as opposed to responding to the actual comment.

He was talking about his view of what is going on right now, you decided to take the easy way out and go with "whites did X first" when they really didn't do it first, because people have been doing it since one caveman argued with another and was losing.

He played the race card.

So progressives don't see white males as oppressors?

You’d have to poll progressives I imagine.

Or you just have to observe their behavior.

 

[candycorn]

White Males: the same guys who codified blacks as being 3/5 of a person in the founding documents of the nation?

Yes, as opposed to black slave owners who codified them only on sales ledgers. What's the difference? It was the thinking of the times.

The person I responded to singled out the one group.

That was in the specific context of current progressive thought. You just pulled a strawman out as a counter as opposed to responding to the actual comment.

He was talking about his view of what is going on right now, you decided to take the easy way out and go with "whites did X first" when they really didn't do it first, because people have been doing it since one caveman argued with another and was losing.

He played the race card.

So progressives don't see white males as oppressors?

You’d have to poll progressives I imagine.

Or you just have to observe their behavior.

Observations can be faulty. Some here still think Trump is an honorable man even after he’s paid porn stars to remain silent about their affair, after he’s insinuated a woman was on her period after moderating a debate, and brags about grabbing women by their genitals. If you’re looking at these people (Foxfyre) would it be fair to think all conservatives think Trump is an honorable man?

 

[OldLady]

Found some fascinating, brand new research on behaviors in partisan politics. Obviously, partisans either consciously or subconsciously dehumanize their opponents so that their opponents are much easier to hate and attack. That's one of the many behaviors shared by partisans on both ends of the spectrum, and these studies suggest its negative effects. Here's research just published during the last month:

Partisan Dehumanization in American Politics

Understanding dehumanization in political contexts is important because the social psychology literature links dehumanization to a variety of negative outcomes, including moral disengagement, aggression, and even violence. In this manuscript, I discuss evidence of partisan dehumanization during the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign and demonstrate how a focus on dehumanization can expose new relationships between moral psychology and partisan identity. Using data from two surveys conducted in October of 2016, I show that partisans dehumanize their political opponents in both subtle and blatant ways. When I investigate the correlates of dehumanization, I find that partisans who blatantly dehumanize members of the opposing party prefer greater social distance from their political opponents, which is indicative of reduced interpersonal tolerance. I also find that blatant dehumanization is associated with perceptions of greater moral distance between the parties, which is indicative of moral disengagement. These results suggest that dehumanization can improve our understanding of negative partisanship and political polarization.

Partisan Dehumanization in American Politics - Heterodox Academy

Although the process of dehumanization has not received much attention in political science, it has received a good deal of attention within social psychology.

Nevertheless, research on dehumanization indicates that the process is associated with moral disengagement whereby a person or group are classified as less than human, and thus less deserving of moral consideration. In other words, when a rival person or group is dehumanized they are seen as undeserving of moral concern. When this occurs, unfair treatment, derogation, and even aggression are then easily justified and rationalized (see e.g., Ellemers 2017; Schwartz 2007). Once this process is underway it may become self-reinforcing, as research indicates perceived dehumanization prompts dehumanization as a response (Kteily, Hodson & Bruneau 2016).
.

Once again I agree with your post in spirit. In real world practice, however, I believe its timing is far too late. Normally I would ignore the grand relentless political theater as I've done in the past and chalk up most of the 24/7 partisan infighting hyperbole to the behavior described in your linked article. But we live in very unique times, historically speaking. Times which are perhaps unlike any other in human history for the attempts to regress the moral foundation of an entire civilization far back to an earlier age when public and political barbarism and savagery were hardly mentionable as they were the social norm. From this forced rebirth of Draconian Cultural Revolution has sprung, in my best estimate, a damn pressing need to oppose this would be end to modern Western Civilization at all costs. Attempts at sidelining or downplaying the pressing importance of that struggle is the last thing we need.

The bottom line, my concern is (a) whether there is a point of no return to all this, and (b) whether we have reached it.

My guess is that we have, and I'd sure love to be wrong. But this momentum is showing little indication of stopping. When any public voice of reason and moderation (and you'll still see a bit from both ends) appears, you'll see it either ignored, mocked or attacked.

Once those voices have been fully marginalized, this thing is over.
.

I think the pendulum has swung to almost the extent of its arc, but it will return to center at some point. It never really rests. What you are seeing, as people keep telling you, is the addition of social media to the equation, and the lax monitoring of what is considered truth by our 1st amendment afficianados. Lies are Constitutional! Hate is Constitutional! Let's all celebrate our freedom to type swill on national social media platforms! That will eventually be moderated.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, as opposed to black slave owners who codified them only on sales ledgers. What's the difference? It was the thinking of the times.

That was in the specific context of current progressive thought. You just pulled a strawman out as a counter as opposed to responding to the actual comment.

He was talking about his view of what is going on right now, you decided to take the easy way out and go with "whites did X first" when they really didn't do it first, because people have been doing it since one caveman argued with another and was losing.

He played the race card.

So progressives don't see white males as oppressors?

You’d have to poll progressives I imagine.

Or you just have to observe their behavior.

Observations can be faulty. Some here still think Trump is an honorable man even after he’s paid porn stars to remain silent about their affair, after he’s insinuated a woman was on her period after moderating a debate, and brags about grabbing women by their genitals. If you’re looking at these people (Foxfyre) would it be fair to think all conservatives think Trump is an honorable man?

The key is repeatability. There are plenty of examples of progressives ranting about white males. You just picked one poster on an anonymous message board.

White men are now the Democratic Party's punching bag. That's a dangerous bet to make.

And honor is a relative term. Bushido saw decapitating your defeated opponent as honorable, something not found in the Western Chivalry concept of martial honor.

 

[night_son]

Found some fascinating, brand new research on behaviors in partisan politics. Obviously, partisans either consciously or subconsciously dehumanize their opponents so that their opponents are much easier to hate and attack. That's one of the many behaviors shared by partisans on both ends of the spectrum, and these studies suggest its negative effects. Here's research just published during the last month:

Partisan Dehumanization in American Politics

Understanding dehumanization in political contexts is important because the social psychology literature links dehumanization to a variety of negative outcomes, including moral disengagement, aggression, and even violence. In this manuscript, I discuss evidence of partisan dehumanization during the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign and demonstrate how a focus on dehumanization can expose new relationships between moral psychology and partisan identity. Using data from two surveys conducted in October of 2016, I show that partisans dehumanize their political opponents in both subtle and blatant ways. When I investigate the correlates of dehumanization, I find that partisans who blatantly dehumanize members of the opposing party prefer greater social distance from their political opponents, which is indicative of reduced interpersonal tolerance. I also find that blatant dehumanization is associated with perceptions of greater moral distance between the parties, which is indicative of moral disengagement. These results suggest that dehumanization can improve our understanding of negative partisanship and political polarization.

Partisan Dehumanization in American Politics - Heterodox Academy

Although the process of dehumanization has not received much attention in political science, it has received a good deal of attention within social psychology.

Nevertheless, research on dehumanization indicates that the process is associated with moral disengagement whereby a person or group are classified as less than human, and thus less deserving of moral consideration. In other words, when a rival person or group is dehumanized they are seen as undeserving of moral concern. When this occurs, unfair treatment, derogation, and even aggression are then easily justified and rationalized (see e.g., Ellemers 2017; Schwartz 2007). Once this process is underway it may become self-reinforcing, as research indicates perceived dehumanization prompts dehumanization as a response (Kteily, Hodson & Bruneau 2016).
.

Once again I agree with your post in spirit. In real world practice, however, I believe its timing is far too late. Normally I would ignore the grand relentless political theater as I've done in the past and chalk up most of the 24/7 partisan infighting hyperbole to the behavior described in your linked article. But we live in very unique times, historically speaking. Times which are perhaps unlike any other in human history for the attempts to regress the moral foundation of an entire civilization far back to an earlier age when public and political barbarism and savagery were hardly mentionable as they were the social norm. From this forced rebirth of Draconian Cultural Revolution has sprung, in my best estimate, a damn pressing need to oppose this would be end to modern Western Civilization at all costs. Attempts at sidelining or downplaying the pressing importance of that struggle is the last thing we need.

The bottom line, my concern is (a) whether there is a point of no return to all this, and (b) whether we have reached it.

My guess is that we have, and I'd sure love to be wrong. But this momentum is showing little indication of stopping. When any public voice of reason and moderation (and you'll still see a bit from both ends) appears, you'll see it either ignored, mocked or attacked.

Once those voices have been fully marginalized, this thing is over.
.

Absolutely agree with your words of wisdom on that and if Americans are genuinely good at anything, it's last second backing away from the brink. Although I myself tend to get caught up in the hyper-partisan rhetoric, I'd like to believe it is not too late to do just that, to look to cooler heads to prevail. Unfortunately, and while we Americans tend to pull off some historically stunning last minute saves, in order to do that we often need a diversion, otherwise known as something "shiny" to take our collective attention off the meltdown issue of the day and sort of reset our national mind. I hope that whatever diversion is coming will be the lesser of many contemporary "evils".

 

[night_son]

Found some fascinating, brand new research on behaviors in partisan politics. Obviously, partisans either consciously or subconsciously dehumanize their opponents so that their opponents are much easier to hate and attack. That's one of the many behaviors shared by partisans on both ends of the spectrum, and these studies suggest its negative effects. Here's research just published during the last month:

Partisan Dehumanization in American Politics

Understanding dehumanization in political contexts is important because the social psychology literature links dehumanization to a variety of negative outcomes, including moral disengagement, aggression, and even violence. In this manuscript, I discuss evidence of partisan dehumanization during the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign and demonstrate how a focus on dehumanization can expose new relationships between moral psychology and partisan identity. Using data from two surveys conducted in October of 2016, I show that partisans dehumanize their political opponents in both subtle and blatant ways. When I investigate the correlates of dehumanization, I find that partisans who blatantly dehumanize members of the opposing party prefer greater social distance from their political opponents, which is indicative of reduced interpersonal tolerance. I also find that blatant dehumanization is associated with perceptions of greater moral distance between the parties, which is indicative of moral disengagement. These results suggest that dehumanization can improve our understanding of negative partisanship and political polarization.

Partisan Dehumanization in American Politics - Heterodox Academy

Although the process of dehumanization has not received much attention in political science, it has received a good deal of attention within social psychology.

Nevertheless, research on dehumanization indicates that the process is associated with moral disengagement whereby a person or group are classified as less than human, and thus less deserving of moral consideration. In other words, when a rival person or group is dehumanized they are seen as undeserving of moral concern. When this occurs, unfair treatment, derogation, and even aggression are then easily justified and rationalized (see e.g., Ellemers 2017; Schwartz 2007). Once this process is underway it may become self-reinforcing, as research indicates perceived dehumanization prompts dehumanization as a response (Kteily, Hodson & Bruneau 2016).
.

Once again I agree with your post in spirit. In real world practice, however, I believe its timing is far too late. Normally I would ignore the grand relentless political theater as I've done in the past and chalk up most of the 24/7 partisan infighting hyperbole to the behavior described in your linked article. But we live in very unique times, historically speaking. Times which are perhaps unlike any other in human history for the attempts to regress the moral foundation of an entire civilization far back to an earlier age when public and political barbarism and savagery were hardly mentionable as they were the social norm. From this forced rebirth of Draconian Cultural Revolution has sprung, in my best estimate, a damn pressing need to oppose this would be end to modern Western Civilization at all costs. Attempts at sidelining or downplaying the pressing importance of that struggle is the last thing we need.

The bottom line, my concern is (a) whether there is a point of no return to all this, and (b) whether we have reached it.

My guess is that we have, and I'd sure love to be wrong. But this momentum is showing little indication of stopping. When any public voice of reason and moderation (and you'll still see a bit from both ends) appears, you'll see it either ignored, mocked or attacked.

Once those voices have been fully marginalized, this thing is over.
.

I think the pendulum has swung to almost the extent of its arc, but it will return to center at some point. It never really rests. What you are seeing, as people keep telling you, is the addition of social media to the equation, and the lax monitoring of what is considered truth by our 1st amendment afficianados. Lies are Constitutional! Hate is Constitutional! Let's all celebrate our freedom to type swill on national social media platforms! That will eventually be moderated.

More words of wisdom and I mean that sincerely. The last sentence of your post describes exactly my motivation for visiting this online waystation.

 

[Mac1958]

Found some fascinating, brand new research on behaviors in partisan politics. Obviously, partisans either consciously or subconsciously dehumanize their opponents so that their opponents are much easier to hate and attack. That's one of the many behaviors shared by partisans on both ends of the spectrum, and these studies suggest its negative effects. Here's research just published during the last month:

Partisan Dehumanization in American Politics

Understanding dehumanization in political contexts is important because the social psychology literature links dehumanization to a variety of negative outcomes, including moral disengagement, aggression, and even violence. In this manuscript, I discuss evidence of partisan dehumanization during the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign and demonstrate how a focus on dehumanization can expose new relationships between moral psychology and partisan identity. Using data from two surveys conducted in October of 2016, I show that partisans dehumanize their political opponents in both subtle and blatant ways. When I investigate the correlates of dehumanization, I find that partisans who blatantly dehumanize members of the opposing party prefer greater social distance from their political opponents, which is indicative of reduced interpersonal tolerance. I also find that blatant dehumanization is associated with perceptions of greater moral distance between the parties, which is indicative of moral disengagement. These results suggest that dehumanization can improve our understanding of negative partisanship and political polarization.

Partisan Dehumanization in American Politics - Heterodox Academy

Although the process of dehumanization has not received much attention in political science, it has received a good deal of attention within social psychology.

Nevertheless, research on dehumanization indicates that the process is associated with moral disengagement whereby a person or group are classified as less than human, and thus less deserving of moral consideration. In other words, when a rival person or group is dehumanized they are seen as undeserving of moral concern. When this occurs, unfair treatment, derogation, and even aggression are then easily justified and rationalized (see e.g., Ellemers 2017; Schwartz 2007). Once this process is underway it may become self-reinforcing, as research indicates perceived dehumanization prompts dehumanization as a response (Kteily, Hodson & Bruneau 2016).
.

Once again I agree with your post in spirit. In real world practice, however, I believe its timing is far too late. Normally I would ignore the grand relentless political theater as I've done in the past and chalk up most of the 24/7 partisan infighting hyperbole to the behavior described in your linked article. But we live in very unique times, historically speaking. Times which are perhaps unlike any other in human history for the attempts to regress the moral foundation of an entire civilization far back to an earlier age when public and political barbarism and savagery were hardly mentionable as they were the social norm. From this forced rebirth of Draconian Cultural Revolution has sprung, in my best estimate, a damn pressing need to oppose this would be end to modern Western Civilization at all costs. Attempts at sidelining or downplaying the pressing importance of that struggle is the last thing we need.

The bottom line, my concern is (a) whether there is a point of no return to all this, and (b) whether we have reached it.

My guess is that we have, and I'd sure love to be wrong. But this momentum is showing little indication of stopping. When any public voice of reason and moderation (and you'll still see a bit from both ends) appears, you'll see it either ignored, mocked or attacked.

Once those voices have been fully marginalized, this thing is over.
.

Absolutely agree with your words of wisdom on that and if Americans are genuinely good at anything, it's last second backing away from the brink. Although I myself tend to get caught up in the hyper-partisan rhetoric, I'd like to believe it is not too late to do just that, to look to cooler heads to prevail. Unfortunately, and while we Americans tend to pull off some historically stunning last minute saves, in order to do that we often need a diversion, otherwise known as something "shiny" to take our collective attention off the meltdown issue of the day and sort of reset our national mind. I hope that whatever diversion is coming will be the lesser of many contemporary "evils".

I don't even know if a major, individual news event - say, another significant terrorist attack - would be enough now. Our tribal impulses appear to be entirely set in stone at this point.

Here's where my "thinking" on this gets REALLY strange: Given what a culture-driven and celebrity-driven society we have become, I think that initial leadership on any real change may have to come from some public figure(s) who would not normally be looked at for leadership.

Two examples: Remember when both Colin Kaepernick and Kanye West were both in the news, and Trump invited them to some kind of "meeting" or "summit"? I was terribly disappointed when that didn't come to fruition. I was setting my sites REALLY LOW, but at LEAST it was SOMETHING. You know how we are, it may have at least started a momentum SOMEWHERE.

I was also disappointed when the Golden State Warriors refused to go to the White House after winning the NBA Championship. I understand they don't like the guy, but this was an opportunity for hugely popular public figures to rise above this stuff and put a hand out. It would have been a statement that we can't keep avoiding each other.

I'll take damn near anything at this point, and I do believe it may need to come from popular culture.
.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Yes, as opposed to black slave owners who codified them only on sales ledgers. What's the difference? It was the thinking of the times.

That was in the specific context of current progressive thought. You just pulled a strawman out as a counter as opposed to responding to the actual comment.

He was talking about his view of what is going on right now, you decided to take the easy way out and go with "whites did X first" when they really didn't do it first, because people have been doing it since one caveman argued with another and was losing.

He played the race card.

So progressives don't see white males as oppressors?

You’d have to poll progressives I imagine.

Or you just have to observe their behavior.

Observations can be faulty. Some here still think Trump is an honorable man even after he’s paid porn stars to remain silent about their affair, after he’s insinuated a woman was on her period after moderating a debate, and brags about grabbing women by their genitals. If you’re looking at these people (Foxfyre) would it be fair to think all conservatives think Trump is an honorable man?

Who gives a flying f*ck???
You think Obama is an honorable man? Nancy Pelosi a honorable woman?
This is exactly what this thread is about.
While folks like you are caught up in your little rock throwing contest, going on and on and on about stuff that doesn't matter one little bit - WE, THE MIDDLE CLASS,,,regardless of political persuasion are continuously losing everything that has made us strong.
We have lost sick days, pensions, our wages stagnant for 2 decades, health insurance costs making us all poor, all the while what the insurance companies pay for us dwindling each year - AND ALL YOU CARE ABOUT IS TRUMP AND A PROSTITUTE.
Grow the f*ck up.

 

[candycorn]

He played the race card.

So progressives don't see white males as oppressors?

You’d have to poll progressives I imagine.

Or you just have to observe their behavior.

Observations can be faulty. Some here still think Trump is an honorable man even after he’s paid porn stars to remain silent about their affair, after he’s insinuated a woman was on her period after moderating a debate, and brags about grabbing women by their genitals. If you’re looking at these people (Foxfyre) would it be fair to think all conservatives think Trump is an honorable man?

Who gives a flying f*ck???
You think Obama is an honorable man? Nancy Pelosi a honorable woman?
This is exactly what this thread is about.
While folks like you are caught up in your little rock throwing contest, going on and on and on about stuff that doesn't matter one little bit - WE, THE MIDDLE CLASS,,,regardless of political persuasion are continuously losing everything that has made us strong.
We have lost sick days, pensions, our wages stagnant for 2 decades, health insurance costs making us all poor, all the while what the insurance companies pay for us dwindling each year - AND ALL YOU CARE ABOUT IS TRUMP AND A PROSTITUTE.
Grow the f*ck up.

As for the Clean Debate Zone thread..it wasn’t about race either until you introduced race. Then of course comedy ensued from your fellow snowflakes.

I pointed out that most of us are shades of purple; true extremists are few and far between despite the OP’s rather hilarious and fanatical insistence otherwise.

 

[impuretrash]

Found some fascinating, brand new research on behaviors in partisan politics. Obviously, partisans either consciously or subconsciously dehumanize their opponents so that their opponents are much easier to hate and attack. That's one of the many behaviors shared by partisans on both ends of the spectrum, and these studies suggest its negative effects. Here's research just published during the last month:

Partisan Dehumanization in American Politics

Understanding dehumanization in political contexts is important because the social psychology literature links dehumanization to a variety of negative outcomes, including moral disengagement, aggression, and even violence. In this manuscript, I discuss evidence of partisan dehumanization during the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign and demonstrate how a focus on dehumanization can expose new relationships between moral psychology and partisan identity. Using data from two surveys conducted in October of 2016, I show that partisans dehumanize their political opponents in both subtle and blatant ways. When I investigate the correlates of dehumanization, I find that partisans who blatantly dehumanize members of the opposing party prefer greater social distance from their political opponents, which is indicative of reduced interpersonal tolerance. I also find that blatant dehumanization is associated with perceptions of greater moral distance between the parties, which is indicative of moral disengagement. These results suggest that dehumanization can improve our understanding of negative partisanship and political polarization.

Partisan Dehumanization in American Politics - Heterodox Academy

Although the process of dehumanization has not received much attention in political science, it has received a good deal of attention within social psychology.

Nevertheless, research on dehumanization indicates that the process is associated with moral disengagement whereby a person or group are classified as less than human, and thus less deserving of moral consideration. In other words, when a rival person or group is dehumanized they are seen as undeserving of moral concern. When this occurs, unfair treatment, derogation, and even aggression are then easily justified and rationalized (see e.g., Ellemers 2017; Schwartz 2007). Once this process is underway it may become self-reinforcing, as research indicates perceived dehumanization prompts dehumanization as a response (Kteily, Hodson & Bruneau 2016).
.

Once again I agree with your post in spirit. In real world practice, however, I believe its timing is far too late. Normally I would ignore the grand relentless political theater as I've done in the past and chalk up most of the 24/7 partisan infighting hyperbole to the behavior described in your linked article. But we live in very unique times, historically speaking. Times which are perhaps unlike any other in human history for the attempts to regress the moral foundation of an entire civilization far back to an earlier age when public and political barbarism and savagery were hardly mentionable as they were the social norm. From this forced rebirth of Draconian Cultural Revolution has sprung, in my best estimate, a damn pressing need to oppose this would be end to modern Western Civilization at all costs. Attempts at sidelining or downplaying the pressing importance of that struggle is the last thing we need.

The bottom line, my concern is (a) whether there is a point of no return to all this, and (b) whether we have reached it.

My guess is that we have, and I'd sure love to be wrong. But this momentum is showing little indication of stopping. When any public voice of reason and moderation (and you'll still see a bit from both ends) appears, you'll see it either ignored, mocked or attacked.

Once those voices have been fully marginalized, this thing is over.
.

I think the pendulum has swung to almost the extent of its arc, but it will return to center at some point. It never really rests. What you are seeing, as people keep telling you, is the addition of social media to the equation, and the lax monitoring of what is considered truth by our 1st amendment afficianados. Lies are Constitutional! Hate is Constitutional! Let's all celebrate our freedom to type swill on national social media platforms! That will eventually be moderated.

What do you mean by "moderated"...? Sounds like censorship to me and if the last couple of years has taught us anything, it's not the political left that gets censored.

 

[Fueri]

research indicates perceived dehumanization prompts dehumanization as a response
Well, yeah! It's difficult to empathize with someone who thinks you're evil.

The question here is, though, whether they really think you're evil, or if they're just using the notion as a crutch, an excuse, a utililty.
.

They're being told to think you're evil.

This all flows down from the top.

The water carriers pick it up and believe it.

We see it constantly here and out in the world. People believe the talking points people spin to manipulate them. I could point to several active threads here right now where people have picked up that type of ball and are running with it like they've won a prize.

Hilarious and pathetic at the same time that people have lost the inability to think for themselves and see through this tactic to see that they are being used, as well as to realize that just because someone disagrees with your viewpoint they are not stupid, evil, racist etc....

 

[Mac1958]

research indicates perceived dehumanization prompts dehumanization as a response
Well, yeah! It's difficult to empathize with someone who thinks you're evil.

The question here is, though, whether they really think you're evil, or if they're just using the notion as a crutch, an excuse, a utililty.
.

They're being told to think you're evil.

This all flows down from the top.

The water carriers pick it up and believe it.

We see it constantly here and out in the world. People believe the talking points people spin to manipulate them. I could point to several active threads here right now where people have picked up that type of ball and are running with it like they've won a prize.

Hilarious and pathetic at the same time that people have lost the inability to think for themselves and see through this tactic to see that they are being used, as well as to realize that just because someone disagrees with your viewpoint they are not stupid, evil, racist etc....

Yeah, it all feeds on itself. We're rewarded (both externally and internally) when we are obedient to our tribe and increase animosity and division.

High fives all around!
.