Thanks, Freepers! Pt. 2 of 3 - What not to do

Beyond the philosophical understanding of the human impulse towards violence and fascism, Freepers have given me some practical advice as well, mostly how not to become what they are. In other words,
What not to do

1. The reverse barometer fallacy
        Freepers have made a virtue of knee-jerk opposition, and seem proud to proclaim their tribalism has reached the point that if Obama is for it, they're against it.
        It's a lot easier to define one's point of view in reaction to someone else than to actually weigh one's values and figure out what you yourself think independent. And it has the added benefit of keeping your tribe distinguished from the bad guys.
       And it's delightfully circular. Everything Obama does is bad for America, so anything that seems to help America must actually hurt America in some hidden way.
       This is tempting when it comes to Freepers. I mean, they're loathsome in their views on just about everything. But that doesn't mean that they will always be loathsome about every little thing. So I try to remember that this is the empty calories of debate. It's often not easy, but I try to note when Freepers have a point. Luckily, they're wont to realize that others might agree with them and rush to overplay their hand to show that they're still Xtreme, dude!

2. The other side is not always arguing in bad faith.
      Freepers often back up their knee-jerk opposition to Obama with the postulate that he's working to bring down America with everything he does. The underlying motives vary - secret Muslimness, anticolonialism, liberalism generally - but the point is that the opposition is not just wrong, they are evil.
      The neat thing about the other side being evil is that this means they are liars. Thus their protestations that they believe what they're advocating can be dismissed as just what an evil person would say to cover up their evilness.
      This is a refrain of partisans on both sides, and it is, of course, not really true. As noted in the previous post in this series, even Freepers' are not entirely corrupt, even if they embrace the less civilized parts of human nature.
       A more moderate, but still overstated form turns up even on more mainstream political websites. Namely the idea that the opposition believes the ends justify the means, and are thus willing to lie (unlike your own side, which tends towards honesty). The big example I hear is that judges you don't like only claim inpartiality, and are just lying to further the cause. Doubtless this is sometimes true, but there is rarely hard evidence of the fact, and there is little to gain in assuming the fact. Except to harden your own position as the righteous one.

3. Pathologizing the other side
       No, Bush isn't a dry drunk. No, Bill Clinton isn't a pathological liar. The urge to declare that the other side is always a temptation, and as with all partisan temptations, Freepers are a poster boy of why it's a bad idea.
       Liberalism is a mental disorder is the title of a book by Michael Savage (who Freepers also call crazy), and it is also a common refrain on Free Republic. Such a blanket statement about those that disagree with you marks you as a partisan idiot. So no, not all Republicans are empathy-lacking sociopaths. Also silly? Diagnosing some politician you've never actually met based on their policy prescriptions.
       Like many of these Freeper fallacies, it's a shortcut that avoids thinking. It is often really difficult to understand how someone can be so wrong - brain disorder is an easy way out, and you never need to actually engage their reasoning!
       Now there are some Freepers that seem to legitimately have a screw loose, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they are all crazy, clever blog title aside. Alas, their awfulness is all too often well within the normal bounds of human nature, as obsessive, hateful, and nihilistic as it may be.

4. The lure of purity.
       Now we're getting to stuff that's far enough from my personal proclivities I'm not personally tempted. Because I'm a pretty hard core pragmatist. But pure partisans on both sides like to demonstrate their commitment by finding this candidate or that to be unworthy of support, even in the face of the crazy/evil opposition. At the moment, this is happening more on the right than the left (with effects I'll be discussing in Part 3 of this series), but it can be seen in the media organs of both sides.
       This temptation seems most strong in a group, where one can earn status by declaring how uncompromising one's commitment is. If this is just a fish tale, then all is well. But if you start believing your own BS...
         To be sure, there is something noble about fighting for ideals above all else. Indeed, many of our myths are about not settling for anything but the best, be that a handsome Prince or corporate buyout. And idealism certainly has it's place. But once you decide compromise is always bad, regardless of the outcome, you've ceased being an idealist, and become Don Quixote.

5. A picture is worth a thousand actual policy arguments
       Freepers love them some photographs. They decide what they want to think (Obama bad, Sarah Palin good), and miraculously they see signs of just such an attribute in the eyes in the photo! It's the laziest, most childlike sort of thinking. And I would have thought it was mostly a Freeper phenomenon, but I've recently seen it on liberal boards as well. George W. Bush wasn't a looker, but neither was he a clear idiot monkey-man from his photos.
        I'm non-visual to a fault, but it's fun, I suppose, to see a picture and project one's narrative onto it. And there's nothing wrong with that alone. But once you start using that picture as an argument (Obama's beady little eyes, Obama looks like Malcom X, Hillary is ugly...), things are getting off the rails. Soon you'll be photoshopping unflattering pictures and sending them around as proof you're side is right.

Part 3: The Freep is on the rise, when next I get the urge!