Uniting America? Don't Count on it

[honorentheos]

I can't think of anyone on the Left who has tried to "dehumanize" Trumpers.

Rather than engage in a tit-for-tat line for line argument, I think we would benefit from asking if the OP legitimately functions as a means of dehumanizing other Americans in a way that has damaging consequences? Or not?

Starting with what it means to dehumanize someone, from Psychology Today -
Any time someone reduces a human being to a single characteristic, especially a negative one, they are dehumanizing. “Alcoholic,” “addict,” “diabetic,” and “schizophrenic” all rob people of the full complexity of their lives and reduce them to a symptom or disorder. Even many self-professed humanitarians used dehumanizing (and inaccurate) terms like “superpredator” in the crime scare of the 1990s. All slurs (insults based on race, gender, sexual orientation, health status or other characteristic) are also dehumanizing.

Dehumanizing language contained in the OP -

We don’t trust you.
We’ve decided to minimize our interactions with people who cannot be reasoned with.
This is for our own safety.
In private groups - where you’re not invited - we share our bewilderment of your descent into madness.
We all have stories about how we’ve cut ties with you, our family and former friends, because we don’t want your hatred poisoning our social media streams.
We can’t stand to listen to you vomiting the lies of your cult, day after day.
You used to be different.
We liked you.
But now that we know what was inside your heart all along, we’ve decided you don’t deserve to know about our lives.
We’ll skip family reunions, even after we get the vaccine.
We’ll make up some excuse just to be polite.
But in reality, we just don’t feel like sitting around eating potato salad and making small talk with people who have such monstrous beliefs.
To all the brothers and aunts and cousins and dads and neighbors out there who just can’t wrap their heads around what this means going forward, know that these scars aren’t going away anytime soon.
We won’t be reaching out, and we won’t be mending fences.
It’s not up to us to apologize for the wounds you have gleefully inflicted upon us and our friends.
You poured the gasoline, you lit the match.
You burned this to the ground.
So if we seem different from now on, I guess we are, in a way.
We’ve seen your truth laid bare, and we’re horrified.

Do you disagree?

[canpakes]

Neither did it stop your own relatives from doing the same. What’s your point?

I wasn't aware we ever claimed to be mnorities worthy of special favors.

I’m going to bet that they were aware of their minority status, while simultaneously believing in the special favor of their divinely-conferred right to take what they wanted, when they wanted to.

White people like Rachel Dolezal pretend to be black. Black people don't pretend to be white. Whites claim Native American ancestry when they don't have it like Elizabeth Warren. Who is really privileged in the USA? What privileges are these imposters seeking?

Perhaps you have an answer to that?

[honorentheos]

Neither did it stop your own relatives from doing the same. What’s your point?

I wasn't aware we ever claimed to be mnorities worthy of special favors.

White people like Rachel Dolezal pretend to be black. Black people don't pretend to be white. Whites claim Native American ancestry when they don't have it like Elizabeth Warren. Who is really privileged in the USA? What privileges are these imposters seeking?

Ajax, this is a discussion board not a bulletin board. If you are here to engage, please engage by listening to what people say and engaging with that topic. Just posting crap like this is a bulletin board for you to pin your poisoned thoughts up for all to see is doing it wrong.

[canpakes]

Dehumanizing language contained in the OP -

:: examples ::
Do you disagree?

Honor, I have questions.

Looking at this line from the OP:

“We all have stories about how we’ve cut ties with you, our family and former friends, because we don’t want your hatred poisoning our social media streams.” (note: no particular ‘opposing’ group is actually identified until the last line mentions, “I hope that Trump was worth it”, although most folks would have no problem identifying ‘sides’ here)

1. Isn’t there a fine line here differentiating between a characteristic (say, calling someone a ‘hater’) and an action (calling out someone for posting “hatred poisoning our social media streams”)? It looks like a number of the examples in the OP fit the latter category, as opposed to the ‘dehumanizing’ aspect of the former, from your definition.

2. In your opinion, is it impossible for a person to use this description above - which could be an accurate illustration of a potentially abusive element in a relationship - without necessarily being judged as ‘dehumanizing’ the person(s) being referred to?

If not, it would seem that calling out that person’s behavior as ‘dehumanizing’ is itself dehumanizing, if we aren’t differentiating between actions and characteristics.

[honorentheos]

I think it pivots on what it means to reduce someone to a trait.

I'll use Cam's example as one I think doesn't dehumanize but is a reaction to an individual towards whom Can had a very human relationship. His reaction to the gulf over the voter fraud scam seems to be a direct cause-effect issue. I thought Icarus' example of taking parental action when his daughter's Facebook was being targeted by family to shut it down is also a reasonable, specific response to specific behaviors. that's not dehumanizing, it's responding to a specific, individual human behavior. Those aren't the same things as making blanket, categorical judgments. The OP is that. It serves to create a category of person and then reduce their humanity down beneath that of the target reader.

[Some Schmo]

It serves to create a category of person and then reduce their humanity down beneath that of the target reader.

OK then honor, give us the forgiving, reasonable view of a Trump voter we can all identify with. This should be interesting.

[ajax18]

I had the experience of a patient coming in with a Joe Biden hat. He proceeded to take up too much time preaching his socialism. My breaking point was when he said look at all the wonderful socialist programs we have in America like grandma and grandpa's social security. Given that both my grandfathers paid but never collected a cent I must have frowned. He said, "I can see your a conservative. Hopefully you're just a Republican, not a Trumper." I said, I'm sorry I'm not very good at hiding that. He proceeded to say that I didn't have to hide that. I had a right to my opinion. Maybe this was how it was once upon a time, but it's not true today. Not being able to speak woke will keep you out of most professional careers. Political speech is far from free according to polls of people of nearly every ideology including moderate Democrats. It's only the far left that feels free to speak their minds. And I think those that believe this are wrong. Even Icarus and Schmo know better than to post under their real name.

[honorentheos]

It serves to create a category of person and then reduce their humanity down beneath that of the target reader.

OK then honor, give us the forgiving, reasonable view of a Trump voter we can all identify with. This should be interesting.

You don't need to identify with a person's views to maintain respect for their humanity.

[Some Schmo]

OK then honor, give us the forgiving, reasonable view of a Trump voter we can all identify with. This should be interesting.

You don't need to identify with a person's views to maintain respect for their humanity.

Have I said anything that makes you think I don't see them as human? I call them idiots because they should know better. If I thought they were animals, I would just let it go, because what would one expect from an animal?

[Some Schmo]

I had the experience of a patient coming in with a Joe Biden hat.

That whole story was BS. You are lying again.