Presidential election, 2016

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-07-2017, 01:57 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(01-06-2017, 11:21 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-06-2017, 10:03 PM)taramarie Wrote: When Bob says  "vile stereotype" I am positive he is meaning just that. He would probably be mentioning that because of the fact it is far too often used as a way of shutting down differing opinions which do not match preconceived and concrete notions/opinions on how the country/world etc is or the way that it should be.

I'd say that's an excellent description of how Bob uses the term "vile stereotype" - as a way of shutting down conversation that doesn't confirm his prejudices.

Well lets just see what he says but I figure he is like me and uses it for all political parties and their voters.

I'd say 'stereotype' is how one might perceive a person's motives, personality and values, while a vile stereotype would be a highly negative stereotype which doesn't represent the person's view point and undercuts what the person is trying to say.  The most obvious sort of stereotype might involve use of words like 'insane' or 'moron'.  Broadly, when one presents the other guy as stupid, insane, brainwashed or otherwise incapable of rational thought, one isn't showing respect, and generally the person doing the insulting isn't making an honest attempt to understand the person being insulted.  If understanding would put one's own beliefs at risk, it becomes easier to deal with a stereotype of the person than listen to the person.

This is quite different from disagreement on issues.  One can talk about, say, gun control, disagreeing but treating the other guy with respect.  However, if anyone who disagrees with an individual gets labeled 'insane' or 'ammosexual', one has gone over into ad-hominum.  One is attributing personality traits, throwing insults, and / or attributing grotesquely false motivations rather than just disagreeing on fact or policy.  I am regularly pinned with such words, but am not greatly disturbed as I know I am quite sane, capable of interacting with society quite well, thank you.  I have no obsession with ammunition.  Sure, I have a few dozen target arrows down in the basement, but they are gathering dust.  They have a mild beauty of function and form, but they don't make me horny.  I don't bring them upstairs to show my lady friends.  Yet, my opinions on gun policy are invalid to some as I'm obviously ammosexual.

It's not profound to want to shut down a conversation that consists of one guy crying "Idiot!", while the other responds "Moron!"  "Ammosexual" is more complex, but it is still a way to attribute the other guy with entirely false motivations and thus reject what he is trying to say.  If one can shift the conversation from fact and logic to insults, one might be able to hide one's own lack of fact and logic.  It is easy to spot when the other guy is badly mangling one's own motivations.  It is harder to recognize when one is doing it one's self.

Now, 'blue recruiter' might not be a truly vile stereotype if I'm understanding now how he is using it.  I don't think anyone would deny Erik leans 'blue'.  If 'recruiter' just means one who is trying to talk folks into sharing one's world view, then we might all be recruiters to some extent by that definition.  The problem is when one starts to treat all 'blue recruiters' as alike, or lump any group of people together as sharing absurd ugly motivations and values.  If someone thinks learning another's party affiliation gives a profound detailed understanding that involves low IQ and unflattering perverted concepts of his politics, there is a problem.  

I interpreted Eric's amazement at how much was known about him as irony.  I assumed that red folk's descriptions of how Eric thinks are twisted, don't reflect Eric's actual thoughts.  In general, when someone red describes someone blue in a perversely unflattering way, I'm dubious... and vice versa.