There's a Method to Their Madness...

[rucky]

Here's the pattern:

They see a threat, even where there isn't one. (Gay Marriage, Barack Obama, Liberals, Saddam, etc.)

It's something they don't understand, don't try to understand, so they see it as a threat to their "way of life" whatever that means.

They rationalize, and look for signs that verify their fears: single cases, or stories manufactured for the sole purpose of convincing others that they should fear, too. Then they get themselves all worked up about how threatening the threat is, conclude that it will destroy said "way of life" if it is not stopped in its tracks.

The best defense is a good offense, so they try to destroy this threat before it actually does any damage. They think/say they're protecting and defending, and what they've actually done is form an elaborate rationalization for attacking something/someone that has not attacked them.

That's the crux of the Bush Doctrine - pre-emptive strikes on manufactured threats. You can apply it to nearly every conservative "cause". Some of the warriors have bought-in whole hog. Others are just bullies with a perfect cover.

If we fight it when it gets to the "pre-emptive strike" stage, we're in a fight to the end - because in their minds, fighting back just reinforces their initial fears. We're defending ourselves, but they see it as their paranoid fantasies coming true. I'm not saying we shouldn't fight - but we need to fight smarter, sooner, and engage in diplomacy in the early stages - even if we know we're dealing with complete bullshit, we need to convince people that their fears are unfounded before they're convinced otherwise by the fearful.

You don't do this by directly attacking people's beliefs, being dismissive, or saying they're full of shit, or bombarding them with facts. Treat it like a toddler who's afraid of the dark.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. What gets me is the unreasoned, unfounded fear.

It may have started at home or in the church (Hell, the Devil). It may have developed in childhood with unaddressed (but valid) fears of safety.

But now, with the government using fear as its main tool of intimidation and control of the masses, these people are now focusing on targets. When I mean targets, I mean individuals who may or may not be strangers, but who have been identified as "other" and "harmful" if not to the fearful one but also to their family. And who wouldn't protect one's family from harm? Hitler did it well with Jews, gays, gypsies, communists, trade unionists, people of slavic descent, anyone who wasn't "Aryan" by "genetics". And we've seen the 9-11 effect develop into "Obama is a Muslim even though he's been unduly influenced by his radical christian minister".

Fear. Unreasonable fear. Not addressing that fear, just acting on it.

And the questions remain: How do you get through to people in such a state of mind and how many can you reach?

[rucky]

3. The only thing I can think of...

is you have to shame and discredit their sources of information. softly. You have to do it by being a bit of a "concern troll" so they don't categorically dismiss everything you say like everybody does to a strong, disagreeable stance.

[no_hypocrisy]

8. True. Good example is Joseph Welsh and Edward J. Murrow discrediting McCarthy

before his era of terror concluded.

[newfie11]

2. People like that are afraid of anything different.

It's called tunnel vision. They do not want to learn about another's culture or expand their knowledge on anything outside their life in their cocoon. It is pathetic and dangerous for the rest of the world especially when one is a president of the US.

[Edweird]

4. The best defense IS a good offense. That works both ways.....

[Edweird]

5. Stupid Flanders.

[Lerkfish]

6. I think "fear of the other" is a low level noncognitive impulse

since we actually have higher functioning frontal lobes, we SHOULD be able to see past it. Some never do.

I recall when I was but 12 years old (making this 1970) being in the boys room at school and walking in on 6 or 7 guys ganging up on Chris, the ONLY black kid in our school. It was not physical, yet, but it was intimidating. I remember my first thought was "what the hell? Chris sits next to us in class day in and day out" I walked over to where Chris was standing and stood next to him. I don't recall what I said or what they said (this is thirty years ago) but I remember they ultimately dispersed and walked away.

But I remember thinking how bizarre, how ARBITRARY the idea was to pick on Chris when they all knew him, just like me, and he was the most nonthreatening nonirritating person I knew at the time.

That was the first time I came face to face with the mindless "fear of the other". Its stupid, it lacks reason, and it collapses one's humanity, folds itself into a tiny ball of shit, and ceases to function in any other way.

I'm really sick and tired of this in our people. America, in fact all of humanity, is better than this crap.

[rucky]

7. Since it's an impulse

could it be something chemical/environmental that at least contributes to a base-level survival instinct being faulty, or "always on" - even when there isn't a threat?

:shrug:

[Lerkfish]

9. could be, I'm no psychobiologist

but it seems to me if its an impulse easily overriden by just thinking about it, I don't see how strong it could be.

[DCKit]

10. A distinct lack of self control is a hallmark of the Repukes I know.

And it doesn't matter how irrational the idea, they've already made up their minds.

Call me a wuss, but I have a tendency to walk away when the arguments stray toward the realm of the irrational - experience has shown there's no convincing them and, especially when it's family, everyone's happier when the arguments are avoided.