- Joined
- Jun 22, 2013
- Messages
- 20,230
- Reaction score
- 28,001
- Location
- Mid-West USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
That is the title of the following video presented for review and comment:
Some may know, or recall that Dr. Karlyn Boysenko Ph.D in Psychology, was a 20-year registered Democrat. Self-admittedly very "Left"-Liberal until she decided to engage "Trump Supporters" with an actual open-mind after attending a New Hampshire Trump rally some time ago.
Since then she has been dealing with the results from her once-friends who (to put it colloquially) thinks she drank the "Trump Kool-Aid."
In the video she uses one example, (and IMO a valid one) of how those on the Left both think of, and deal with, those they consider "Trump Supporters."
Basic takeaways?
1. The Left thinks the Right is "evil," while the Right thinks the Left is "misinformed." As a result, the Left views those they label Right as "The Enemy;" but the Right views the Left as "misled."
2. That when someone on the Left seeks to "engage" with someone on the Right, they are trying to convert them to their ideal of "Moral Good." While the Right is simply asking the Left to open their own minds to different views.
3. That despite the author of the NYT opinion piece claiming to "listen," he did no actual listening but lots of trying to "convert." That he failed to actually "reach out" with an open mind to hear the other side. Thus he created a self-fulfilling prophecy exemplified in his own words as "we cannot help people who refuse to help themselves."
IMO this has occurred over and over in every aspect of Media, and Social Media including our own Forum. Using the tactics of Moral Panic to divide this nation's population "emotionally."
Arguably (and sadly) IMO this is frequently reflected in the tenor of posts to this very Forum.
https://debatepolitics.com/threads/...of-emotionalism-and-political-bigotry.421148/
Some may know, or recall that Dr. Karlyn Boysenko Ph.D in Psychology, was a 20-year registered Democrat. Self-admittedly very "Left"-Liberal until she decided to engage "Trump Supporters" with an actual open-mind after attending a New Hampshire Trump rally some time ago.
Since then she has been dealing with the results from her once-friends who (to put it colloquially) thinks she drank the "Trump Kool-Aid."
In the video she uses one example, (and IMO a valid one) of how those on the Left both think of, and deal with, those they consider "Trump Supporters."
Basic takeaways?
1. The Left thinks the Right is "evil," while the Right thinks the Left is "misinformed." As a result, the Left views those they label Right as "The Enemy;" but the Right views the Left as "misled."
2. That when someone on the Left seeks to "engage" with someone on the Right, they are trying to convert them to their ideal of "Moral Good." While the Right is simply asking the Left to open their own minds to different views.
3. That despite the author of the NYT opinion piece claiming to "listen," he did no actual listening but lots of trying to "convert." That he failed to actually "reach out" with an open mind to hear the other side. Thus he created a self-fulfilling prophecy exemplified in his own words as "we cannot help people who refuse to help themselves."
IMO this has occurred over and over in every aspect of Media, and Social Media including our own Forum. Using the tactics of Moral Panic to divide this nation's population "emotionally."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panicA moral panic is a feeling of fear spread among a large number of people that some evil threatens the well-being of society. A Dictionary of Sociology defines a moral panic as "the process of arousing social concern over an issue – usually the work of moral entrepreneurs and the mass media".
Moral panics have several distinct features. According to Goode and Ben-Yehuda, moral panic consists of the following characteristics:
Concern – There must be the belief that the behaviour of the group or activity deemed deviant is likely to have a negative effect on society.
Hostility – Hostility toward the group in question increases, and they become "folk devils". A clear division forms between "them" and "us".
Consensus – Though concern does not have to be nationwide, there must be widespread acceptance that the group in question poses a very real threat to society. It is important at this stage that the "moral entrepreneurs" are vocal and the "folk devils" appear weak and disorganized.
Disproportionality – The action taken is disproportionate to the actual threat posed by the accused group.
Volatility – Moral panics are highly volatile and tend to disappear as quickly as they appeared because public interest wanes or news reports change to another narrative.
Arguably (and sadly) IMO this is frequently reflected in the tenor of posts to this very Forum.
https://debatepolitics.com/threads/...of-emotionalism-and-political-bigotry.421148/
Last edited: