I think they’re both different aspects of dehumanization - thinking of people as if they were animals. Animals, after all, are both less intelligent than humans, and often more mature, independent and dangerous than a human the same age. After all, what’s more dangerous, a two-year-old child, or a two year-old pit bull?
This is similar to Kavanaughism a unique condition where you argue that what you did in high school has no bearing on whether you should enter the Supreme Court, then… once appointed… you then rule that things done in high school should damn you to prison for life.
Broomstick noted that this can and does happen with women, but I’m curious why this kind of behavior happens with black people and women, but I don’t think I see it with other forms of bigotry.
To my knowledge I’ve never seen this with anti Jewish, or anti Muslim, or anti catholic, or anti chinese, or anti LGBT forms of bigotry. I’m curious what made the difference that it applies to some forms of bigotry but not others
[Moderating]
I realize that this topic relates closely to politics, but this is over the line. We can have this discussion without referring to specific political individuals.
Accepted, but my comment literally spoke to the double-standard being discussed in this thread.
/end
I wouldn’t call it bigotry, but it’s the exact same argument that some people make against “SJWs,” the “PC police”, “cancel culture,” and so on. They’re simulaneously weak and silly and so powerful you need to be scared of them.
It does really feel like there should be a term for this sort of cognitive dissonance.
IMO that is exactly the nub. Bravo for distilling it out of all the commentary.
Now armed with that cogent summary, we do see that can be applied by at least some commentators to these folks:
contrary to @Wesley_Clark’s thoughts. Admittedly it’s a bit rarer for some groups than for others.
e.g. much anti-Muslim sentiment is couched in terms that they’re so beholden to their supposedly antiquated religion as to be unreliable adult citizens of the 21st century. And yet they’re so powerful and their theocratic principles so compelling that they are on the march, slowly but inevitably over-running all of first Europe and eventually the entire West. Which is quite a cognitive
One could make a distinction between my contention and the OP’s point. The OP was about children versus adults of the out-group. My point is about alternate characterizations of the out-group. But ISTM that’s a distinction without a difference.
The actual point of the real (and bad) in-group behavior he points up is simple:
If the best way to justify kicking somebody is to make them bigger / badder, then label them bigger / badder. Then kick them for that.
If the best way to get away with kicking somebody is to make them smaller / weaker, then label them smaller / weaker. Then kick them safely.
It’s simply a rationalization around the hoary old human feature bug that
The ends really do justify almost any means.