It's easier to hate a person with a name and a face than to hate a concept.

[Towlie]

In George Orwell's novel, 1984, the Party knew that they could more effectively promote hatred for the Resistance if they gave that Resistance a name and a face, so they used the character of Goldberg, and displayed his face on the telescreens during the Two Minutes Hate. In Orwell's story, it's not even clear that Goldberg actually existed. He may have been fabricated by the Party because they knew that it's easier to hate a person with a name and a face than to hate a concept.

We see that same strategy in use by conservatives today.

Instead of directly rejecting evolution, they often speak instead of "Darwinism".

Instead of directly rejecting global warming, they often steer their hatred toward Al Gore.

Instead of directly rejecting socialism, which the USA has virtually always had to one degree or another, you'll often see it referred to as "Marxism".

And instead of directly rejecting health care reform, they label it "Obamacare".

It's a very shallow and shameless way to argue, and I think they need to be called out on it.

[INRM]

I don't know about most people, but...

- I don't reject evolution: I believe it to exist, but regardless, I call it evolution.

- I don't reject that global warming happens in nature, and can be caused by human action; what I'm irritated about is that climate-researchers deliberately manipulated data.

- Marxism is a specific type of socialism, which is also known as Communism. I've generally used the term communist. When talking about socialism in general, I've used the word socialism.

- I've rarely used the term Obamacare. I have sometimes referred to the healthcare reform as "Obama's Healthcare Reform" or "The Public Option" and such of that nature.

[Ladewig]

I'm not convinced that it is easier to hate a person than a concept. I hate Nazism and white supremacists. I don't need to know the names of any Nazis in the U.S. I find their philosophy repugnant and undeserving of any credence.

If Al Gore died tomorrow, the people who disagree with AGW would still disagree with it. Their disagreement would not become more difficult because the face were removed.

Also, I don't really think Darwinism falls into the same category. The evolution-denialists don't know jack about Darwin. I think they adopted the Darwinism label because it made it easier for them to play the silly micro vs macro game.

The local right wing radio hosts in my market have no trouble with criticizing socialism. I don't hear Marxism that often.

[Number Six]

"Personalizing" something is an effective way to persuade humans.

Although Obama sometimes says something like "40 million Americans are without health care" I bet he makes more headway when he says "I had to watch my mother fight the insurance companies as she was dying from cancer." Referring to his mother personalizes it.

When dog and cat shelters run ads on TV or the paper they don't just say "Dogs and cats need a good home," rather they show a picture of a specific dog or cat.

You can cite all the studies of which cars are best or worst but it doesn't carry as much weight as when a personal friend tells you "I bought an X and it was great." Or lousy. The same goes for whether you should buy a record album or book or see a movie.

People are moved by other people more than they're moved by concepts. Generally speaking, at least. So I think it's easier to get them to hate a person rather than a concept but I think it's also easier to get them to like a person rather than a concept.

[dudalb]

In George Orwell's novel, 1984, the Party knew that they could more effectively promote hatred for the Resistance if they gave that Resistance a name and a face, so they used the character of Goldberg, and displayed his face on the telescreens during the Two Minutes Hate. In Orwell's story, it's not even clear that Goldberg actually existed. He may have been fabricated by the Party because they knew that it's easier to hate a person with a name and a face than to hate a concept.

We see that same strategy in use by conservatives today.

Instead of directly rejecting evolution, they often speak instead of "Darwinism".

Instead of directly rejecting global warming, they often steer their hatred toward Al Gore.

Instead of directly rejecting socialism, which the USA has virtually always had to one degree or another, you'll often see it referred to as "Marxism".

And instead of directly rejecting health care reform, they label it "Obamacare".

It's a very shallow and shameless way to argue, and I think they need to be called out on it.

True, but the left wing of the specturm uses is every bit as much as the right.

[quixotecoyote]

True, but the left wing of the specturm uses is every bit as much as the right.

Not necessarily disagreeing, but - examples?

[dudalb]

Not necessarily disagreeing, but - examples?

The way the term Racism is tossed around strikes me a good example. It's used by some on the left with the same concern for truth and accuracy that the term Commie was used during the McCarthy era.

[quixotecoyote]

The way the term Racism is tossed around strikes me a good example. It's used by some on the left with the same concern for truth and accuracy that the term Commie was used during the McCarthy era.

McCarthyism would have been an appropriate, if outdated and arguably justified, example.

However, 'racism' is not derived from a person's name.

[Towlie]

McCarthyism would have been an appropriate, if outdated and arguably justified, example.Yes, I'll concede that. Any more examples?

[Peephole]

I don't reject that global warming happens in nature, and can be caused by human action; what I'm irritated about is that climate-researchers deliberately manipulated data.
This never happened, you're badly informed and have been misled.

[gtc]

Yes, I'll concede that. Any more examples?

Limbaugh is seen as the public face of the Republican party in the same way that Al Gore is seen as the public face of AGW.

Attacking Rupert Murdoch when its really the mainstream media as a whole that the person has a problem with.

[Towlie]

Limbaugh is seen as the public face of the Republican party in the same way that Al Gore is seen as the public face of AGW.

Attacking Rupert Murdoch when its really the mainstream media as a whole that the person has a problem with.I think maybe you're missing the point. As far as I know, nobody refers to right-wing ideology as "Limbaughism", "Murdochism", "Glenn Beckism", or any other word derived from the name of a prominent proponent.

For that matter, if "McCarthyism" was a popular term for the communist witch hunts of the 1950's, it seems perfectly justified in that case, considering that McCarthy led the movement and was chiefly responsible for it. I've never used the term myself, although I have referred to those times as "The McCarthy Era".

[gtc]

I think maybe you're missing the point. As far as I know, nobody refers to right-wing ideology as "Limbaughism", "Murdochism", "Glenn Beckism", or any other word derived from the name of a prominent proponent.

Nobody refers to AGW as Al Gorism and yet he is mentioned in your OP.

[Brainster]

Does anybody really hate Darwin? Gore, Marx and Obama I will grant you. BTW, there was a lot of opposition to Clintonism.

[The Painter]

I didn't realize 1984 was still part of a curriculum.

[sphenisc]

Emmanuel Goldstein

[hgc]

Attacking Rupert Murdoch when its really the mainstream media as a whole that the person has a problem with.


When it comes to attacking the media, I do like to lay responsibility at the foot of the owners, whether embodied by a person or by a corporation. If it's NBC/MSNBC, etc, it's about GE and their use of their media properties. When Jack Welch was still in charge, his name was rightfully attached to these criticisms, and now Jeff Immelt is responsible for their atrocities. Same goes for News Corp, and their famous founder/CEO, Rupert Murdoch; Disney's (ABC) CEO Bob Iger; and so on.

If Fox News pays Glenn Beck go on air and say that Obama hates white people, white culture, etc, or pays Brit Hume to proselytize to wayward sports celebrities on a Sunday morning news show, then it most definitely is Rupert Murdoch's policy and intent for FNC to present it. When Keith Olbermann, in the process of dumbing down a whole generation of "progressive" leaning audience, runs pointless, sexist stories every night for 2 weeks about Carrie Prejean, it's Immelt's policy that he do that.

ETA: Murdoch cleverly tries to distance himself from his own product, by enabling the moronic tool of a "media critic," Michael Wolff, to write a biography of him, where he plants the absurd notion that he has regrets about the more ridiculous things propagated on FNC. Nice move. http://www.slate.com/id/2205748/

[Darth Rotor]

I respectfully disagree with your premise.

It's easier to hate a person with a name and a face than to hate a concept

First off, I'll offer you a conservative, Michael Savage, who goes on at length about "Islamo Fascism" and gets all riled up. That's a concept, not a name.

I'll offer another pair of example in direct opposition to your bald assertion.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34762332/ns/world_news-asiapacific/

Three Christian churches bombed over the use by Non Muslims of the term "Allah." Any old symbol of Christian will do.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34736848/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa

Seven Egyptian Christians killed by Muslim gunners, any old Christian will do, after a Christian man was accused of a crime -- a rape.

In both cases, the hate / anger boiled over at the concept, not a particular person.
In George Orwell's novel, 1984, the Party knew that they could more effectively promote hatred for the Resistance if they gave that Resistance a name and a face, so they used the character of Goldberg, and displayed his face on the telescreens during the Two Minutes Hate. In Orwell's story, it's not even clear that Goldberg actually existed. He may have been fabricated by the Party because they knew that it's easier to hate a person with a name and a face than to hate a concept.
Was his full nema Osama Benjamin Goldberg? :p
ETA: Jest was supposed to read as follows: Was his full name Osama Benjamin Goldstein?
Instead of directly rejecting evolution, they often speak instead of "Darwinism".I have seen the argument as going after both, not confined to either the idea or the man.
Instead of directly rejecting global warming, they often steer their hatred toward Al Gore.
That line of attack goes after both, not either / or, fro what I read and hear.
Instead of directly rejecting socialism, which the USA has virtually always had to one degree or another, you'll often see it referred to as "Marxism".
And socialism. I fact, I see socialism referred to as the bogeyman far more often than Marxism.
And instead of directly rejecting health care reform, they label it "Obamacare".
Again, both modes are used.
It's a very shallow and shameless way to argue, and I think they need to be called out on it.
Who is "they" and why should "they" be called out for this tactic? (Besides the usual skeptical objection to such narrow and deceptive argumentation). Do "they" happen to be the only people who use this tactic?

I'd like to call you out for a weak attempt at constructing an either / or argument. You didn't do very well.

DR

[Towlie]

I'd like to call you out for a weak attempt at constructing an either / or argument. You didn't do very well.What? :confused:

I argued that those things often happen and you "countered" by arguing that sometimes they don't happen? It's truly weird that you somehow see a contradiction there. The two are not mutually exclusive. To say that something often happens is not to say that it always happens, or even to say that it happens most of the time. Are you unable to see that?

Was his full nema Osama Benjamin Goldberg?His "nema" was actually Goldstein. Sorry about the error.

[GStan]

Yes, I'll concede that. Any more examples?

I recall arguments against tax policy over the last 6 to 8 years as frequently being characterized/labeled as "George Bush's tax cuts for the rich."

[Towlie]

I recall arguments against tax policy over the last 6 to 8 years as frequently being characterized/labeled as "George Bush's tax cuts for the rich."Imagine that.

[GStan]

Imagine that.

:confused: Does this not qualify as an example as you requested?

[IchabodPlain]

"Personalizing" something is an effective way to persuade humans.

Although Obama sometimes says something like "40 million Americans are without health care" I bet he makes more headway when he says "I had to watch my mother fight the insurance companies as she was dying from cancer." Referring to his mother personalizes it.

When dog and cat shelters run ads on TV or the paper they don't just say "Dogs and cats need a good home," rather they show a picture of a specific dog or cat.

You can cite all the studies of which cars are best or worst but it doesn't carry as much weight as when a personal friend tells you "I bought an X and it was great." Or lousy. The same goes for whether you should buy a record album or book or see a movie.

People are moved by other people more than they're moved by concepts. Generally speaking, at least. So I think it's easier to get them to hate a person rather than a concept but I think it's also easier to get them to like a person rather than a concept.

Agreed, and does much to explain why we place a disproportionate weight on anecdotal evidence. Humans are moved by "human events"*. Concepts are abstract, not immediate, nor are they readily able to determine necessary consequences.

The Holocaust was indeed horrific and terrible, but a story like that of Ann Frank personalizes it in such a way so that we may step inside the dilemma of what happened to ordinary people and the effects it had on them.

Another example is Alexander Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago. When reading his (and others) experiences, I felt a personal immediacy with the consequences of Soviet ideas, and a connection with those whom it affected. This book also roused a great many in the Soviet Union at the time as well (copies of it were secretly circulated inside the Soviet Union), and offered a glimpse to those in the west of what exactly was happening inside the Iron Curtain.

The other side to that coin is that concepts may seem to leave more to the imagination than do human stories, as we attempt to find what follows from those concepts. DR made a point about Islamo-Fascism. However, I'm willing to bet (and wouldn't know because I don't listen to Savage, so will have to refer to DR's recollection of the show) that when he goes on about Islamo-Fascism, he mentions specific examples - hands being cut off, infidels being beheaded, whatnot. He ties them to specific human events, using them as evidence that the idea is not worthwhile.

*Duh.

[Darth Rotor]

The two are not mutually exclusive.
OK.
His "nema" was actually Goldstein. Sorry about the error.
Sorry about the typo, I went and fixed both.

[Tailgater]

Imagine that.

Same difference as Obamacare. Bushcuts doesn't flow well though. Bush's War is close. Reaganism is used alot. I think it goes both ways, but it depends on how catchy it sounds.

[Tailgater]

I think maybe you're missing the point. As far as I know, nobody refers to right-wing ideology as "Limbaughism", "Murdochism", "Glenn Beckism", or any other word derived from the name of a prominent proponent.

For that matter, if "McCarthyism" was a popular term for the communist witch hunts of the 1950's, it seems perfectly justified in that case, considering that McCarthy led the movement and was chiefly responsible for it. I've never used the term myself, although I have referred to those times as "The McCarthy Era".

You've never heard of a dittohead?

Teabaggers has also been a recent slang label.

People latch on to whatever helps win the arguement. This applies to everything on any side.

How about overgenerlizedbiasopism?

[Ladewig]

What? :confused:

I argued that those things often happen and you "countered" by arguing that sometimes they don't happen? It's truly weird that you somehow see a contradiction there. The two are not mutually exclusive. To say that something often happens is not to say that it always happens, or even to say that it happens most of the time. Are you unable to see that?

His "nema" was actually Goldstein. Sorry about the error.

The original claim was not that it often happens, the original claim was that it is easier to hate a concept associated with a person than a concept not associated with a person. I am not convinced you have proved that claim.

[Bob Klase]

Nobody refers to AGW as Al Gorism and yet he is mentioned in your OP.

I thought "AGW" stood for "Al Gore Warmism"?

[peptoabysmal]

After listening to eight years of "Chimp Bushitler" and "Bushism" and "Dumbya" and "biCurious George" and on and on and on, I find the statement that conservatives are using this tactic today is laughable. But then, I might be tempted to engage in ridicule which seems to be the weapon of choice for liberals. :D


...
Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
...
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.
...
- Saul Alinsky 1971

[Ladewig]

After listening to eight years of "Chimp Bushitler" and "Bushism" and "Dumbya" and "biCurious George" and on and on and on,

Do you consider those names to be the product of mainstream liberals?

To clarify what i said earlier, I do not consider Darwinism to be mainstream conservatism. Only a tiny fraction of conservatives use that term. I also don't consider the Marxism claim in the OP to be a mainstream conservative tactic.