@nonlinear I think "radical" in "radicalize" is a shortening of the concept "radical reform", as in a reformist who wants to make change to a system from the roots.
I agree that "radicalizing" by itself doesn't signify that concept wholly.
@vortex_egg when they say “radicalized” they mean when someone broke and got violent with others.
Or at least THIS case that we need a better word. It’s about being so hypnotized by ideas, you dehumanize the other.
(Realize A LOT more people are this than “radicalized”)
@vortex_egg it’s not extreme. It’s not radical. It’s when propaganda grooms you to dehumanize others.
Anything not status quo is used as “radicalized”. It’s a trap.
The act of informational programing does often result in fanatics and zealots who are strong believers in _some_ idea, but it might not necessarily be the specific idea of other people being subhuman.
@nonlinear @11backslashes I want to zoom up from this and bring another distinction into play: Marshall Rosenberg's distinction of violent communication and nonviolent communication. (I think this will ultimately be related to the idea we want to get at).
In Rosenberg's ontology, communication is an act that humans do in order to get their basic human needs met (physical needs, emotional, psychological, etc).
Violent communication is zero-sum communication that assumes that one person's needs being met _must be at the expense_ of another person's needs. This type of language uses threats of punishment and reward, praise/blame, shame, etc.
Nonviolent communication starts from the premise that everyone can get their needs met, because everyone is a human being with basic human needs.
He tells a story from Hannah Arendt's book Eichmann in Jerusalem, where Arendt discusses the war crimes trials of Nazi Adolf Eichmann.
Eichmann was asked how he and the fellow Nazi officers who organized the concentration camps were able to do so. Eichmann said that they used a special form of language that allowed them to distance themselves from the acts they were doing and from the people they were doing them to. He called it Amtssprache, or "office speak" or "bureaucratese". It was a way of speaking where if you were asked why you took a certain action you could say "I had to", "Officer's orders."
That’s numbing. Your CNS uses it to distance yourself from extreme distress.
I like your train of thought because it centers that dehumanization is a process, taught.
(Indoctrination and education and training are interchangeable, depending on goals)
@11backslashes @nonlinear The wikipedia article on dehumanization has some interesting information about the causes of dehumanization, including government-led dehumanization and mention of propaganda to that effect.
It frequently refers to governments leading “dehumanization campaigns”, which gets close to our distinction but not all the way there: the subject of this phrase is the group of people who are being dehumanized, and not the group of people who are being propagandized into doing the dehumanizing.
It also mentions related concepts that we’ve touched on such as depersonalization, and infrahumanisation (this one is new to me) which is the tacitly held belief that one’s ingroup is more human than an outgroup.
Infrahumanisation also gets close to the mark of what we are looking for, being that its subject is the set of people coming to have the belief of the less-ness of other people, but unfortunately it does not cover the 1st key element, of the propagandistic coercion into coming to hold that belief.
I want to use the suffix “-fangled” to indicate the state of having been fixed by a propagandized belief.
I just need to come up with a good first part of the word, to indicate the specific belief that one is enfangled with (which in our distinction would indicate the belief in dehumanizing other people)
I got to “-fangled” from “propaganda” which is pro (forth) + pag (to fasten). The PIE root pag is the same as in words like pact and impale. A nasalized form of pag, fangalon, is at the root of fang (meaning to take or seize) and newfangled (to fasten on the new), and “fanglement” means “an act of fashioning”.
Thus, “-fangled” is the state of having been fixed or fastened of fashioned with a propagandized belief.
I like "Q-fangled", that's a perfect example.
It really speaks to the element of the QAnon phenomenon where it is partially a top-down propaganda psyop campaign that is being waged against the people who come to believe in it (in addition to being a bottom-up participatory conspiracy theory).
Side note, this is also an example of what I'm starting to refer to as an "emergent-programmed" belief system: that is an ecosystem or network of beliefs shared by a collective group of people that has both participatory and propagandistic components to how it spreads.
A bunch of technomancers in the fediverse. Keep it fairly clean please. This arcology is for all who wash up upon it's digital shore.