A Defining Quality of Our National Discourse: Those Who Disagree With Us Are "Crazy"

[Echo In Light]

Hey all ...

I don't usually start threads, however, I wanted to bring this to the forefront to get other views on it as it's something that's been obvious for many yrs now, yet is scarcely addressed:

when/how did we get to the point where one of the primary, defining characteristics of the national discourse pertaining to significant issues of how our society is managed involves attacking and denouncing opposing views, and those who espouse them, as being "crazy?"

It usually goes something like this:

Per his/her background assumptions, person A abides one view.

Per his/her background assumptions, person B abides an opposing view. Therefore, person A automatically, immediately, refers to person B as being "crazy."

I'm of the opinion that this is rarely warranted, is grounded in behavioral cues people take from various popular mass media, and overall tends to blur certain, crucial distinctions. Discuss if you care to ...

[Captain Hilts]

1. Well said. nt

[Grey]

2. Excellent question? nt

[Howzit]

3. Anyone reading reading DU may conclude that progressives will tolerate anything, except

disagreement. I think it is a form of censorship. Can't tolerate anyone who uses unfair tactics such as invoking facts and logic? Silence them and anyone who dares disagree with abuse and name-calling.

[blm]

4. yep....dare to read the actual reports in the National Security Archives and you get labeled by

those who think it is not normal for citizens to actually read government reports and documents.

[Echo In Light]

5. Thanks for the input

[ismnotwasm]

6. I think extreme

beliefs without any plasticity indicates some sort of mental disturbance. As well as views that lack compassion, or logic, such as fundamentalist--or any negative--assualt on Gay rights.

Beliefs that incite violence as part of dogma.

Most people just want to exist, to live. Most don't have the desire or the courage to protest or challenge. Our language itself has many hate words used everyday. It's reflective of not not an individual mental illness, but a societal one.

When thoughtlessness, bad faith and misrecognition are in play, once normal people can become monsters, so no, it's not "crazy", but very horrid things arise from inattention and apathy. As well as scapegoating and pathological selfishness. We also tend to filter out a lot of unacceptable injustices. It's too painful, and not possible to feel for everything and everybody so we don't. Our filter goes even further, and we don't get involved in obvious injustices that affect our daily lives.

[Oak2004]

7. There are, however, some views that are pathological

Disputes over how to address and/or prioritize terrorism? Policy disagreement.

Supporting torture without any real grasp of what that means? Ignorance.

Supporting torture (up to and including ordering torture), knowing what it means? Moral depravity, sociopathy, given modern society's propensity to label antisocial behavior a disease, pathology.

Part of why we don't have a lot of political dialogue these days is that in order to talk and compromise you need to start from a set of ideas and values held in common. Without that shared set of ideas and values, no dialog is possible, only battle. The divisions in society right now over many issues are fundamental in nature-- and that includes divisions within the Democratic Party (which is why I think at some point in the relatively near future -- maybe 20 years from now-- we'll be looking at a political landscape where the Republicans are an extremist third party, if they exist at all, and the two party system will consist of two parties both descended from the current Democratic Party).

Bemoaning the absence of dialog under conditions of fundamental disagreement won't make it happen. All one can expect under those conditions is warfare or separation.

[Echo In Light]

8. Interesting take on possible future parties/divisions

You may not be far off with that.

Also, most people define things before they encounter them. Couple this with a country that's relied on The Big Lie versus The Big Stick as a means of social control, and it's easy to see how many will base their opinions on these deeply entrenched background assumptions rather than data presented that doesn't fit those propaganda-induced assumptions.

[Bluerthanblue]

9. when you have nothing else to offer, name calling is what comes

up, for some folks.

Substitute "retarded", "drug-addicted", "alzheimered" "_____" whatever for 'crazy' and they serve the same purpose. The really sad thing, imo, is that those who actually suffer from mental illness, alzheimer's, etc. who are hurt by this. Implying that they SHOULD be marginalized, rejected, distanced.

NO ONE wishes to be 'mentally challenged', addicted to drugs, have their cogitative abilities fail, or be mentally ill- it happens though. And trivializing these very real, life altering situations by 'insulting' or 'dismissing' those we disagree with by saying they must be ________ is wrong. It's unfair to those who really do suffer. It's the kind of thing that we are supposed to outgrow. It's childish and doesn't help anyone. imo :shrug:

You poopy-head you

:evilgrin:

[ItNerd4life]

10. Because they don't have the brains to discuss issues

They don't want facts. Their mind is made up. Not many people are intelligent enough to have their world view
challenged. If you challenge them, they take it as a personal insult and thus must insult back.

It's amazing how many people complain about how Republicans are deragatory and then they turn around and do it.

[Echo In Light]

11. It's found in abundance online, but perhaps was largely instigated via talk radio

[Seeking Serenity]

12. Don't forget accusing a disagreeing person of committing "hate speech."

That one bugs the mess out of me.

[Echo In Light]

13. Common scenario: haters intentionally provoke others into responding in kind, only to....

....then feign taking the high road, and accuse those who react/respond in the way the hater wanted them to as being somehow out of line and disrespectful.

That's sort of along the same lines as the "hate speech" accusation, as both can serve to stifle unconventional views.

In the case of DU, this is often accompanied by a snide tsk-tsking, and demanding that they - those the belligerent intentionally provoke - be more mindful of DU's rules.

It's the classic right-winger MO: impute to others that which you are most guilty of. There are a handful of posters here who I'll rarely bother interacting with since they favor this tactic ...be they cognizant of it or not.