Adversary Tactics

Heads up.
This one is for the un-zombiefication I intended here.

99% vs the 1%
"They are socio-paths", "Evil cynical gits" and so on and so on ...

Hang on...

Wait up!

I think. You are thinking about this wrong. Just like the 99%'rs, they totally believe what they are doing is the right thing to do. Mind bending huh? But pretty much likely to be true in the vast majority of cases. Even serial killers tend to believe they were doing the right thing.

So if you want to PsyOp this one, you need to retrain the thinking. Once you've got that "They really think they are doing the best thing" under your hat, it begins to be easier to see where logic and questions can be applied and asked to undermine it rather than all out pointless confrontation.

But...

There's a problem.

People holding right wing, homophobic, racist and generally intolerant views (in fact the common factor is resistance to change from a norm), have been proven to have lower IQ's.

You're not just figuring out which pillars of unfounded logic to chip away at here, you're dealing with someone who has a relatively reduced mental capacity compared to yourself.

Put that first misconception and that second compounded problem together? And you've got a why left bashes it's brains out against the right again and again and again for decades ...

Fun huh?

Later Edit:
Clarity time. It's just a hunch, but I think many of the people on the right who annoy the left so much are not doing the best they can to sabotage the country. I think a fair few of them just honestly believe (in my view wrongly), that if you protect the money and allow profiteering that jobs will be created and everyone will be happy. They still buy in to trickle down economics and a faith that those at the top act in the interests of the majority. Almost touchingly naive and idealistic perhaps?

Even Later Edit:
I've watched a fair few of these arguments scroll past. Athiest v Christian, Democrat v Republican and a fair few other flavours. The end it seems. Is not the argument. In virtually all cases you have one side with an entrenched world view who is willing to bend rules lets say to preserve that world view. On the other side you have someone with a new idea or approach that conflicts with that view.

Seems stupidly simple, but a battle us weird humans seem to fight every second of every day, focusing on the issues that bring the difference to the light, and ignoring the basic root problem. Fear of change / the unknown vs. new approaches or interpretations that might work better (or worse!).

I don't really have an answer to it. Just a sneaky feeling that this is how humans do it since language enabled it. The side that shouts longest and loudest, wins. That's Democracy isn't it? Oh hell no. Not touching that with a barge pole. It might be the roots for the concept of Democracy. Where we are now is a whole different ball game.