WMN: t3_320cdd_t1_cq7m8m2

[TITLE]

CMV: The use of hyperbole in politics ultimately undermines your own side and radicalizes groups you oppose

[BrawndoTTM]

Baseless accusations of extreme positions have the effect of making those positions seem more palatable. For example, when Rush Limbaugh and his ilk call everyone they don't like a socialist, it desensitizes people to the ideology. Liberals keep getting called socialists, and it makes socialism seem a lot more palatable to the average person, emboldening actual socialists and legitimizing them in the eyes of society. People are going to look at that and think "OK, if supporting affordable health care makes me a socialist, then I guess I'm a socialist." Similarly when SRS types accuse anyone vaguely critical of far-left orthodoxies of being a racist or sexist, it turns these positions from the fringe to the mainstream. Moderate conservatives and libertarians are constantly being baselessly attacked as being racist or sexist, what are they going to think? "OK, so wanting tax reform makes me a racist, then I guess I'm a racist." "OK, so believing in due process rights makes me a sexist, then I guess I'm a sexist." This again breaks down sensitivities, and makes non-imaginary instances of racism and sexism seem less abhorrent. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[jack324]

Hyperbole is literally the worst thing ever! It turns your argument into dogshit, and your opponent into Hitler.

[JustinAuthorAshol]

Phunny. One apropos joke should be allowed per thread.

[MidnightRain99]

metaphors apeal to emotion and not rerason and affects someone more than facts. you can win somebody over with emotions over facts Fear gets people to unify patriotism unifies

[VortexMagus]

Slight tangent: Its honestly really strange that socialism has become such a dirty word in American politics, since both parties have implemented a *lot* of socialist policies to date. For example, food stamps are socialism, medicare is socialism, unemployment benefits are socialism, social security is socialism, benefits for veterans are nothing but a form of socialism. These are all programs that have both conservative and liberal lawmakers behind them. Most form of publicly funded scientific research are nothing but socialist practices in motion. I'm honestly quite puzzled.

[Braver_Incident]

This is conpletely wrong. Neither side has inplemented anything like a socialist policy. Actual socialists have an extreme hate for two ideologies: facism and liberalism. For good reason as well. Your definition of socialism is the one most people hold and is also a lsrge misconception on what socialism is. Socialism doesn't even WANT government policies. Almost all socialist ideologies end with the state being abolished, the paths are just different. Those paths are communism and anarchism

[VortexMagus]

Directly from the dictionary: [STA-CITE]>a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. [END-CITE]tl;dr any redistribution of income in which you take from the rich and invest in the community as a whole, is socialism. This is most forms of taxation and government service.

[Braver_Incident]

No, it isn't. Income is not a means of production, nor is it property. Factories, tools, processing plants, and to a certain extent, land, are means of production. Socialism calls for the abolition of private property, due to the materialist philosophy it is based on. (marxism) It wants everything to be owned by everyone, so that phenomenons like the dependency theory, socioeconomkc inequality, nondemocratic work places, and bourgeois oppression will cease to exist. Labor, a primary focus of socialism, will finally be rewarded for the value produced. A chair maker will no longer esrn 10$ for the 100$ chair he makes. He will be able to appreciate the fruits of his labor. The correct definition, by the way, in which all socialists agree on, and which Karl Marx had defined, was democratic ownership of the means of production.

[VortexMagus]

I think you have [socialism](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism?s=t) and [communism](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism?s=t) mixed up. They're two very different things. Socialism says very little about the means of production, or the nationalization of property, and is not derived from marxism, but rather collectivist ideas that marx based his own theories on.

[Braver_Incident]

Going to a internet dictionary to define something as complex as socialism and communism is not a good idea. Especially since those dictionaries include colloquial usage of those words. You have mixed up, yourself, socialism communism and Communism. Lower case communism is the final utopian end stage where state, money, and class cease to exist. It was the objective of most socialist ideologies, and in this context, socialism was seen as a transition stage to communism. Upper case Communism, which everyone unknowingly knows and does not differentiate from lower case communism, referred to any country in control of a Communist or Vanguard party that aimed to achieve communism by first nationalizing industry, then hoping that the state would wither away. That ideology is called Leninism. Not to mention that not all socialism is nationalization. Libertarian socialism and anarcho-communism exist. [STA-CITE]>Socialism says very little about the means of production, or the nationalization of property, and is not derived from marxism [END-CITE]...what? That's the whole point of socialism. Socialism didn't derive from Marx, but it's foundation was built by Marx. Primitive socialism existed as Christian communism where they believed that decentralized communes were the way to go. Marx had created a materialist philosophy that justified socialism, analyzed how it would, and showed objectively why capitalism would naturally fail. You need to actually read Marx or socialist literature to understand. Just because the public education system or internet dictionary told you X, doesn't mean it is true. Socialism has been defined and mapped out for over 200 years. Go to any socialist community and say what you just said, and you are going to be called a liberal and shunned away. There is also little reason to even be a socialist if you do not accept a materialistic world view, because that is the only thing that actually backs it up.

[Pilebsa]

Hyperbole is a very effective tool to seize control of a debate or issue when you don't have more substantive evidence to stand on. Calling someone a "socialist" or comparing them to "nazis" is called a "Strawman argument" - it's used to *attack the messenger, ignore the message* and dismiss his argument without due consideration. The right very effectively use this technique to push through various issue-positions that do not have the real-world references to back them up. Furthermore, many people who hold positions on certain issues, do so not because they've rationally arrived at a thoughtful conclusion based on available evidence. It's an emotional position. And hyperbole is targeted at peoples' emotions. Likewise, when trying to "reason" with a person who holds an unreasonable position, logic and thoughtful argument doesn't often work. Mockery and shame is a time-tested tactic. I don't approve of it, not at all. But there is no doubt that using these techniques is very effective in manipulating people, especially those who are averse to doing their own homework and coming up with their own conclusions. Hyperbole is used very effectively in a number of scenarios: * Religion - most religions use *shame* as a tactic to impose order, obedience and conformity. It's the basis of the Judeo-Christian sects for sure. Mankind is "cursed" and must "atone". That's an emotional appeal. * Talk radio and right wingers use strawman arguments, false dichotomies (suggesting issues are one-extreme or the other, i.e. "If you don't support invading xxxx then you hate America."), false equivalences (both sides of an issue are equally at fault, etc.) -- all of these techniques are methods of misdirecting debate in favor of personal attacks. * Liberals use these techniques as well, recently evidenced by the current "anti-vaxxer" arguments online - anyone who expresses concern over vaccinations is often personally attacked and publicly humiliated. Do these things tend to polarize and exclude people from thoughtful debate and compromise? I think yes, in some cases, but I think in other cases there is also evidence that trying to reason with an unreasonable person is an exercise in futility -- and in those cases, more hyperbolic engagement does make a difference. I think if you cite extreme examples on each side of this issue, they play into the scenario you have adopted and I wouldn't disagree with you, but this is also a false dichotomy. There are many in-between shades of gray, where sometimes it *can* be effective to mix rational debate with a bit of hyperbole and emotional appeal. I think the biggest misconception in all, is the notion that anybody's point of view will be immediately, dramatically changed as a result of *any* argument. This just isn't the way these things work. Usually "seeds of dissenting ideas" are planted by opposing forces, and those seeds take time to germinate and grow within the other person. Those seeds can be planted by both rational, respectful discourse, or through hyperbole and emotional appeals. Usually, the more difficult ideas to undermine require a lot of time, and a lot of emotional appeals.

[garnteller]

I think you misunderstand the purpose of the Rush Limbaughs, Fox News and MSNBC employees. The are not trying to effect positive change - they are trying to get ratings. Sports cheerleaders don't say, "Meh, we generally suck, but the beer's cold", they say "We're number 1!". Or fans chanted "Yankees suck!" when they were unquestionably the best team in baseball. That's how you rally your base, with "we're great, they suck!" language. People tune in to find likeminded folks preaching to the choir. Rush's goal isn't to oppose health care, it's to build a cadre of followers who change "Kill Obamacare!" with him - so it's not undermining his side- it's just not the side he pretends it to be.

[JustinAuthorAshol]

You're argument, "hyperbole in politics changes attitudes", is generally in the direction of the OP's point, if somewhat obliquely. [STA-CITE]> Or fans chanted "Yankees suck!" when they were unquestionably the best team in baseball. [END-CITE]If you wanted to make a point, you would have said, just because fans chant "Yankees suck!" that doesn't make Yankees accept that they suck.

[noobit]

I think he was disagreeing re: calling those things "politics," as opposed to say, entertainment. ("cheerleaders")

[garnteller]

No, my point was that it doesn't undermine Rush's (and the others') own side as the OP asserted. Rush's side is Rush, and his hyperbole helps him.

[JustinAuthorAshol]

**Ultimately, this post contains a counter-argument to the OP.** (Note: I'm not debating Left/Right ideologies. Leftist/Rightist examples are chosen for illustration only.) Thanks for the clarification. We'll continue down that line, shall we? In that case, I'm still not seeing... not understanding anything contrary to OP. OP might agree that Rush's side tends to bolster extremism, and that his hyperbole helps him *in that manner*. However, OP is saying that Rush's success at stereotyping anyone that's an inch to the left as (in a pseudo-Rush-ian vernacular), "being a deluded, radical, tree-hugging, hippie, feminazi, socialist" (did I get that about right? :) has a self-fulfilling prophesy effect of making the left accept that position as normative. I'm not sure I agree with the concept, but it might be a difference in definition. It's typically described as moving the political dialog into extremist views, which alienates the middle. The middle is then forced to choose between the lesser of two evils: extreme right wing or extreme left wing. Another effect it has, which could be used strategically, and I think this is more realistic, is the following example. Suppose leftist gets used-to "how horrible the extreme right wing" is. They are so absurd, they're simply insane and inane. Then if the right brings forward a moderate conservative candidate, that person might could garner the swing vote compared to a more extremist left wing candidate. So yeah, I don't think it makes people believe that's "what they are", I think OP might just be seeing the effects of polarization of the issues, and perhaps mistaking that polarization as being mainstream. Furthermore, if OP engages in "debates", he/she is likely to run into the more vocal polarized view. **Counterpoint:** This means OP is likely a level-headed average person closer to the middle, and is dismayed at the increasingly polarized views that he/she is running into.

[garnteller]

I don't disagree with what you say. But the OP asserts that Rush is hurting's Rush's cause. But Rush is helping his own cause (the betterment of Rush). He's only hurting his alleged cause (conservatism). It's like saying "a Pro Wrestler is making a mistake by using the pile driver, because, strategically, other moves are more effective at winning a match". The Wrestler doesn't give a damn about winning the match, he's an entertainer, so the whole premise is wrong, whether or not the wrestling strategy is sound.

[CoolGuy54]

You might enjoy this article from a very thoughtful man about whether it's OK to lie for a good cause. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-community-and-civilization/ He's not against hyperbole for the reasons you state though, he's against it because he sees truth and honesty as higher goals than whatever the political fight of the day is. So regardless of whether or not accusing the NRA of being paranoid fantasists who don't care about dead children is *effective* or radicalising, I'm not going to do it because I'd rather have a civil discussion and be open to finding out what we can agree on and what I might be mistaken on. It's not just about radicalising your opponent, its about how debate works in society in general: We've stopped using violence, we've (almost) stopped lying outright, maybe soon as a society we can stop name-calling and deliberately misrepresenting and so on.

[nwf839]

You're assuming that people who analyze issues independently will apply a label referring to an entire political or social philosophy to themselves based on the rhetoric of people whose opinions they don't respect in the first place. I'm sure that it happens sometimes, but much more rarely than people who actually listen to Rush Limbaugh dismissing their desire for universal healthcare based on his characterization of it as socialist. This brings me to my point, which is that for the most part this strategy works, or else no one would do it. Liberals have had a difficult time getting legislation involving social aid passed recently because even many of their constituents have an ingrained notion of it as being socialist (which it technically is, but that's not necessarily a bad thing). With regard to SRS and public shaming, people are definitely now more careful about what they say on twitter for fear of having there careers ruined or the personal info exposed in a media frenzy centered around tumblr or gawker.

[adelie42]

I know this is entirely anecdotal, but the only people I know that listen to Limbaugh are people that hate him. I'm sure there must be people that like him and agree with him, but I've never heard anyone try and support their own position by saying Limbaugh said something that supported their position. By contrast, Limbaugh is the go to character of what certain people imagine all conservatives to believe. I've never listened to the show, but the few quotes I have heard sound like troll bait.

[TwinSwords]

I think you have a very strong point and I almost completely agree with it. The only place I have a quibble -- and it really is just a small detail compared to your much broader point -- is where you attempt to be balanced, deploying the "both sides" fallacy. For example: [STA-CITE]>Rush Limbaugh and his ilk call everyone they don't like a socialist [END-CITE]This is completely accurate. And it goes beyond Limbaugh's ilk. It pretty much includes the entire professional GOP establishment: their elected leaders at all levels, their media personalities, their pundits, book authors. All of them. The entire conservative movement reads from the same playbook, whether it's a US Senator or that guy in your office. There is nothing like this on the left. There might be remote, annoying corners of petulant leftism hidden away in various dark corners, but they hardly dominate an entire political movement. [STA-CITE]>Similarly when SRS types accuse anyone vaguely critical of far-left orthodoxies of being a racist or sexist [END-CITE]It is true that a small but annoying group of people behave this way. They are annoying, and they are a tiny fringe element of the Democratic Party and the American left. They don't dominate anything except the comments sections of a few subreddits. Certainly not the Democratic Party, and certainly not the collective voice of the left in all media, like Limbaugh and his ilk dominate the voice of the right in all media. [STA-CITE]>Similarly when SRS types accuse anyone vaguely critical of far-left orthodoxies of being a racist or sexist it turns these positions from the fringe to the mainstream. [END-CITE]Racism is not the fringe. I know that there is a very widespread belief in America that racism is a thing of the past. But it's not. There *is* a taboo against open expressions of racism; racists have to be very careful how they speak. But racism is absolutely rampant in the US. I say this with the perspective of a white 51 year old American male who has lived in different parts of the South and Midwest, including rural and urban areas, my entire life. [STA-CITE]>Moderate conservatives and libertarians are constantly being baselessly attacked as being racist or sexist... [END-CITE]I don't think this is true. Sure, maybe if you hang out in comments sections on Tumblr or a few places on reddit you will be exposed to this kind of abuse. Problem is that probably half the people commenting on the internet are between 10 and 17 years of age. They can be obnoxious and they can be toxic to a debate, but they have no political or social influence. It's nothing like their counterparts on the right, who dominate and control the conservatives movement. [STA-CITE]>"OK, so wanting tax reform makes me a racist, then I guess I'm a racist." [END-CITE]This is hyperbole. Someone, somewhere may have once said favoring tax cuts makes you a racist, but you said this is happening "constantly." It's not. The problem again is the need to paint the "both sides" picture. Since "both sides" is a fundamentally inaccurate description of US politics, you have to resort to hyperbole to present a balanced picture. But no balance exists. There just isn't anything on the left that compares to what you are describing on the right. ~~~~~~~~~~~ TL;DR: I think you have a very strong point that political hyperbole can backfire and is ultimately self-defeating. My only issue with your argument is the attempt to paint a false equivalence between how this plays out between the left and the right. There are no Rush Limbaugh's on the left. There are no liberal Michael Savages. No left-wing Glenn Becks. No Democratic Fox News. There is simply nothing anywhere on the left that can compare with the ceaseless barrage of nonsense that flies from every corner of the right and dominates the GOP.

[rustyarrowhead]

there is exactly this type of rhetoric on the left - see any comparison of government surveillance being related to Hitler/Stalin. also, the left consistently uses words like 'police state' and 'totalitarianism' to evoke an emotional response towards individuals and groups. look no further than documentaries like "Loose Change" and "Zeitgeist." your assertion of a false equivalency is based on your own biased reading of leftist thought. even mainstream guys like Bill Maher participate in this sort of bullshit. the problem for the radical/extreme left is media penetration and reach comparatively to the far right. in Canada, it's being used in reference to Harper all the time, it just doesn't reach the mainstream outside of ridicule. you could actually argue that the conservative 'revolution' starting with Nixon has allowed for the right to really have limitless extremism. this is a major factor in the silencing of a lot of the far left. political power has that ability to control discourse and I can only speculate that the left would also gravitate to the extreme if taken as the dominate narrative long enough.

[mathemagicat]

[STA-CITE]> there is exactly this type of rhetoric on the left - see any comparison of government surveillance being related to Hitler/Stalin. also, the left consistently uses words like 'police state' and 'totalitarianism' to evoke an emotional response towards individuals and groups. [END-CITE]This is not "the left." This is libertarian/anarchist rhetoric which appears on both sides of the left/right divide and is used to attack all statists, including both liberals and traditional conservatives. [STA-CITE]> look no further than documentaries like "Loose Change" and "Zeitgeist." [END-CITE]This is even more not "the left." 9/11 CT is an obsession of tiny fringe elements on both sides of the left/right spectrum. Even most libertarians and anarchists think truthers are insane. [STA-CITE]> your assertion of a false equivalency is based on your own biased reading of leftist thought. even mainstream guys like Bill Maher participate in this sort of bullshit. the problem for the radical/extreme left is media penetration and reach comparatively to the far right. in Canada, it's being used in reference to Harper all the time, it just doesn't reach the mainstream outside of ridicule. [END-CITE]That's exactly the point. There are a few crazy people who also happen to hold left-wing economic views, but the mainstream left has absolutely no responsibility for them. Not only do we not listen to them, we do our level best to keep their craziness from infecting the public discourse. The mainstream right, on the other hand, enables and encourages and funds their crazy people. Radical right-wing rhetoric is mainstream. It influences elections and redefines language. Radical left-wing rhetoric is so pathetically fringe that it might as well not even exist. They are not equivalent.

[sleepyj910]

[STA-CITE]> there is exactly this type of rhetoric on the left - see any comparison of government surveillance being related to Hitler/Stalin. also, the left consistently uses words like 'police state' and 'totalitarianism' to evoke an emotional response towards individuals and groups. [END-CITE]This can just as easily describe Tea Party rhetoric against Obama. In some sense, it's not left/right so much as 'those who seek purity and stability' and 'those who seek equality and compassion', and sometimes the purists are more interested in feeling right than they are understanding what side they've landed on. Any ideal can be co-opted by purists, but some causes are more attractive because they are more naturally aligned, such as patriotism.

[TribeFan11]

This doesn't dispute his point - /u/rustyarrowhead only was saying that both sides have extremists.

[bananabooks]

If what you say is true, we would have seen the country drift leftwards through the ascendance of talk radio and Fox News. The opposite has happened. If the groups you oppose don't proportionately radicalize, your use of hyperbole serves your cause by energizing your base and pulling the center of discourse towards you. This is what has [actually happened](http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Multimedia/Interactives/2013/stats_images/housenew.png) in US politics.

[TribeFan11]

Except that MSNBC, Mother Jones, Slate, etc. have come into existence at the same time.

[Frilly_pom-pom]

To support /u/bananabooks 's point - Nobody would consider **MSNBC** a *leftist source* today if it weren't for the (extreme) rightward shift of political news coverage that has made them seem "left" by comparison.

[jdw1066]

As someone who reads actual leftist news sources on occasion, MSNBC is pretty moderate/centrist. There really is no left equivalent to Fox News in American media. I think the reasons for this are threefold. For one, mainstream media in the US is fundamentally corporate. This has two consequences. One, the fact that the media is a set of profit driven corporations goes against basic leftist ideologies. Moreover, in a purely capitalistic sense, there simply isn't a market for a leftist big news TV station, for example, in America. The other main reason is that leftists have been repeatedly attacked by both the government and by public opinion over the last century. This has both significantly weakened the Left, and has turned away almost any public support from actual Leftist causes.

[CocoSavege]

Strange linked graph. I would be concerned that the valuation of the y axis is strange and very subjective. The source is http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2013/house-and-senate-partisanship I don't have time to go into the source

[bananabooks]

They are actually quoting Poole and Rosenthal's DW-NOMINATE scores, which you can google. Nothing strange about it - it is a very good reflection of actual trends in American politics.

[objection_403]

Hyperbolic words is a form of [heuristics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic) (especially when political). [STA-CITE]> Liberals keep getting called socialists, and it makes socialism seem a lot more palatable to the average person, emboldening actual socialists and legitimizing them in the eyes of society. People are going to look at that and think "OK, if supporting affordable health care makes me a socialist, then I guess I'm a socialist." [END-CITE]Unfortunately this doesn't seem to have worked in practice. The left has become so afraid of hyperbole that they've slowly shifted to the right over the decades. In the recent Congressional elections they were terrified to be associated with Obamacare and "socialism." That's because, unfortunately, heuristic thinking is effective on a wide-scale. EDIT: In fact, I think Bernie Sanders is the only Senator to actually claim the title of "socialist." I think your theory is disproved by the simple fact that liberals get called socialists all the time, but the only one to call themselves a socialist is an independent! [STA-CITE]> Moderate conservatives and libertarians are constantly being baselessly attacked as being racist or sexist, what are they going to think? "OK, so wanting tax reform makes me a racist, then I guess I'm a racist." "OK, so believing in due process rights makes me a sexist, then I guess I'm a sexist." This again breaks down sensitivities, and makes non-imaginary instances of racism and sexism seem less abhorrent. [END-CITE]I'm not so sure about that. There's always an extremist on every side, and I find that generally if you accuse a moderate of being extreme, the first thing they do is point to the extreme saying "this is dumb, I'm clearly not like them." I think **not** being a member of that extreme is why they end up holding the same position. They're able to completely disregard the opinion of the person making the accusations because the accusation seems to extreme itself. It's a way of insulating yourself from the criticism rather than associating yourself with the criticism's comparison.

[Braver_Incident]

Except bernie sanders isn't a socialist, hes a social democrat self described as a socialist, because he is an idiot or knows socialism as a buzz word will get him votes

[objection_403]

Regardless it demonstrates the point- Democrats aren't embracing the term.

[megablast]

Nobody in the world on the left calls themselves socialists, unless they really are. This does not show anything.

[objection_403]

OP's opinion is that if you use hyperbole to accuse others as extremism, they will be more likely to embrace that extremism. Leftist politicians get called socialist by conservative news stations and political commenters all the time. If OP's theory is true, then at least some of them would have embraced the term. They haven't, and in fact do everything they can to disassociate from socialism. Thus, OP's theory does not fit real world outcomes.

[megablast]

Damn, finally got it. Thx.

[megablast]

[STA-CITE]> The left has become so afraid of hyperbole that they've slowly shifted to the right over the decades. [END-CITE]Is that why they shifted over, because they were afraid? That does not seem likely. It seems more likely that they are going the way the people want, and the people do want more money spent on right wing solutions. [STA-CITE]> y the simple fact that liberals get called socialists all the time, but the only one to call themselves a socialist is an independent! [END-CITE]This doesn't prove any such thing.

[rustyarrowhead]

you could point to Civil Rights leaders in the mid-1960s as well. the founder of the NAACP - W.E.B. Du Bois - was expelled from the organization due to the Red Scare fall-out. he was branded a communist - unjustifiably - and was deemed dangerous to the cause. in fact, hyperbole often forces the other side of the debate to actively change their *appearance* to be more palatable (arguably achieving the goal of the accuser: either reproach on a particular issue and/or adjusting the scales for favourable compromise). similarly, hyperbole is often quite effective in galvanizing the base of a particular movement. arguably, the conservative push emanating from Nixon's presidency (really, a movement solidified from mid-1967 onwards) derived its substance from fears of "socialism" and social disobedience/deviance. a mix of anti-communist/socialist fervour, backlash against countercultures, and growing rejection of the democratic dominance over congress and the executive in the mid-60s, pushed the right further and brought much of the left with it. a cursory glance at political speeches of the time hint at the buzzwords used: 'socialist', 'sexual deviance', 'drug culture', 'black power',... I've tried to avoid reference to authoritarianism but consolidation of power depends heavily upon hyperbole and control of social thought. while it's easier to detect in non-democratic regimes (for outsiders), its just as influential in democracies though more subtle (generally).

[bigboatfear]

I don't think that speaking in hyperbole is really a heuristic process. I think its a combination of motivated reasoning (see Taber and Lodge 2006 and Kunda 1989) and affective polarization (the recent work of Shanto Iyengar). All of these things are cognitive processes but they do differ. Usually when we talk about heuristics in political science it has to do with decision making processes (For example: I'm cognitively lazy so I don't gather the information I need to make a rational decision and instead decide who to vote for based on a shortcut like my party ID, my ideology, the economy, a candidate's appearance...) Those things are decision making shortcuts because they summarize information. I can KINDA see how heuristics can lead to hyperbole but I'm not sure its the best word to describe the process.

[objection_403]

I think it can appropriately apply to decisions about whether or not to support certain bills or people. If a political pundit says "Obamacare is socialism!" then through a heuristic association of socialism = bad for America, I reach the conclusion to not support Obamacare. I'm not a psychology expert, and I only dipped into this research for a different purpose, so I may be wrong on this. It just seemed to correctly fit what I saw described.

[TalShar]

This is all correct. Unfortunately, while hyperbole *shouldn't* work on the large scale, the fact is that it *does.* This,contrary to popular opinion, isn't because people are *stupid,* but because traditional education these days, for *whatever* idiotic reason, neglects to teach its pupils about fallacies and rhetorical devices. These politicians are basically exploiting a common loophole in human reasoning that most people just haven't been taught (or haven't bothered to put forth the effort) to close.

[objection_403]

To be fair, heuristic thinking is sometimes vital. We don't always have time to think through all aspects of everything when making a decision about something, and using cue associations will let the average person be *generally* right. Modern researchers seem to caution very much against the idea that heuristics = stupid. The problem is that politics becomes so complicated that it's hard for anyone to have enough time to grasp everything. It's a particular area where heuristics are ripe for abuse, and politicians abuse it terribly.

[TalShar]

Absolutely. Heuristic thinking has its place... We just need to teach the next generation how to use the alternative. When all you have is a hammer...

[BrawndoTTM]

[STA-CITE]> Unfortunately this doesn't seem to have worked in practice. The left has become so afraid of hyperbole that they've slowly shifted to the right over the decades [END-CITE] Huh, well I guess it's hard to deny that. A real-world example of something completely disproving my point certainly merits a ∆. It made sense logically in my head, but looking at the real world I guess hyperbole does pay.

[objection_403]

Thanks!

[themysteriousdoctorx]

...except they haven't shifted over the decades. If that were true there wouldn't be the huge divide that currently exists between dems and republicans who literally shut down the government before they compromise with one another.

[mathemagicat]

But they have. Both parties have drifted to the right dramatically. It's just that Republicans drifted faster.

[megablast]

[STA-CITE]> Huh, well I guess it's hard to deny that [END-CITE]What? This doesn't prove it at all. Do you know the difference between causation and correlation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

[THE_LAST_HIPPO]

But OP was the one citing a cause and effect originally? /u/objection_403 was pointing out an example where the two variables don't even correlate. Or am I misinterpreting your point?

[megablast]

[STA-CITE]> A real-world example of something completely disproving my point certainly merits a [END-CITE]So where is the real world example? There isn't one.

[THE_LAST_HIPPO]

That (x) people use hyperbole to attack liberals and (y) democratic politicians steer clear of identifying with the hyperbole. Even if there wasnt an example, it has nothing to do with distinguishing correlation from causation

[megablast]

You might as well say people use hyperbole to attack liberals, so they started buy more smartphones. It makes no fucking sense. Liberals weren't associating themselves with socialists before it became common for repubs to call them out on it.

[YourKneesAreWeird]

Unless I was trying to say that using hyperbole liberals would lead to a decrease in smartphone purchases. If that was my contention, than even a correlation between attacks and an increase and smartphone pirchases would disprove my point

[objection_403]

I considered responding exactly the way you have- this was my understanding too. OP is saying that X leads to Y. My point is that there's plenty of X, but no Y.

[OmnipotentEntity]

It's called "Shifting the [Overton Window](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)" and it's a form of [door in your face persuasion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique).

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/objection_403. [^objection_403's ^delta ^history](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/user/objection_403) ^| [^delta ^system ^explained](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/DeltaBot)