Foxfyre said:
Unfortunately, like most of her ilk, she focuses so much attention on criticism of the 'other side' that she never gets around to expressing a coherant reason for why the 'other side' is wrong, off base, hateful, or whatever the negative adjective of the day might be.
They're pretty much all like that. So why does Rush get singled out? Probably because he's the most listened to radio personality in the nation. Obviously he's doing something right.
No, they don't all do that. Rush doesn't do that. If he is going to say that somebody is wrong, dishonest, off base or whatever,
he will give a specific, well-articulated reason, analysis, and rationale for his opinion about that and, more often than not, will cite a source that his listeners can follow up to verify what he has said. He is sometimes partisan and judgmental in his more all inclusive criticisms of liberals and liberalism in general, but while he doesn't bother to explain a rationale each time he does that, he does explain it within his full context over a period of time.
You obviously never listen to LimpBoy, or you are a pathological liar just like your MessiahRushie.
He spews his "well articulated" pure CON$ervative hate day in and day out, year in and year out.
February 2, 2007
RUSH: We may not, cockroaches will. That means some liberals will.
January 21, 2010
RUSH: You gotta understand, folks. See, I know liberals -- I know these cockroaches --
Thursday Quotes: A Lovable Little Fuzzball
October 9, 2008
"I call Obama a squirrel. What's a squirrel? Nothing but a rat with better PR."
http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/dehumanization/
Dehumanization
Dehumanization is a psychological process whereby opponents view each other as less than human and thus not deserving of moral consideration.
The Psychology of Dehumanization
Dehumanization is actually an extension of a less intense process of developing an "enemy image" of the opponent. During the course of protracted conflict, feelings of anger, fear, and distrust shape the way that the parties perceive each other. Adversarial attitudes and perceptions develop and parties begin to attribute negative traits to their opponent. They may come to view the opponent as an evil enemy, deficient in moral virtue, or as a dangerous, warlike monster.
An enemy image is a negative stereotype through which the opposing group is viewed as evil, in contrast to one's own side, which is seen as good. Such images can stem from a desire for group identity and a need to contrast the distinctive attributes and virtues of one's own group with the vices of the "outside" group.[4] In some cases, evil-ruler enemy images form. While ordinary group members are regarded as neutral, or perhaps even innocent, their leaders are viewed as hideous monsters.[5]
Enemy images are usually black and white. The negative actions of one's opponent are thought to reflect their fundamental evil nature, traits, or motives.[6] One's own faults, as well as the values and motivations behind the actions of one's opponent, are usually discounted, denied, or ignored. It becomes difficult to empathize or see where one's opponent is coming from. Meaningful communication is unlikely, and it becomes difficult to perceive any common ground.
Once formed, enemy images tend to resist change, and serve to perpetuate and intensify the conflict. Because the adversary has come to be viewed as a "diabolical enemy," the conflict is framed as a war between good and evil.[7] Once the parties have framed the conflict in this way, their positions become more rigid. In some cases, zero-sum thinking develops as parties come to believe that they must either secure their own victory, or face defeat. New goals to punish or destroy the opponent arise, and in some cases more militant leadership comes into power.
Enemy images are accentuated, according to psychologists, by the process of "projection," in which people "project" their own faults onto their opponents. This means that people or groups who tend to be aggressive or selfish are likely to attribute those traits to their opponents, but not to themselves. This improves one's own self-image and increases group cohesion, but it also escalates the conflict and makes it easier to dehumanize the other side.
Deindividuation facilitates dehumanization as well. This is the psychological process whereby a person is seen as a member of a category or group rather than as an individual. Because people who are deindividuated seem less than fully human, they are viewed as less protected by social norms against aggression than those who are individuated.[8] It then becomes easier to rationalize contentious moves or severe actions taken against one's opponents.
