Add new comment

Someone sent me this the other day. I think it's really good on this topic (and weird synchronicity).
TLDR: most of us have our own tribe (ingroup) and define an enemy tribe as the outgroup, most of us do this with people who are like us to a significant degree (and not to the radically "other"), and the tribes do not follow the expected categories. For a lot of Americans, the liberal/conservative tribes are really important. You're a lot more outraged about the things your outgroup says/does than things that other people say/do, even if in a calm moment you'd say the latter are actually worse. So if you're in the liberal tribe, you'll be outraged that conservatives celebrate the death of bin Laden (who is in one of their outgroups), but then you're meant to celebrate the death of Thatcher. All rather contradictory. But basically, people in someone's outgroup can be really hated, they are seen as pure evil, whereas people who do bad things but who are not part of the outgroup are just flawed human beings.

Reich covers similar territory with his concept of "Emotional Plague".

Hate stems from fear (not anger), fight-flight (limbic) reactions and defensive aggression are involved, even if it's also a good excuse for sadism and ego-boosting too.

I have quite a few outgroups. Pigs and their ilk are the biggest. The kind of latently sadistic right-wing bigot who posts comments like "these protesters are scum and should all be shot" is not far behind. Behaviourism is another big no-no. Within the anarchist scene, my biggest bete noirs used to be leftists who idolise working-class communities, mistake working-class common sense for truth, and are intolerant of other axes of struggle. For the last five years or so, they've been replaced as the main "problem" by idpols. I didn't used to be antagonistic with idpol at all, and embraced a lot of their ideas during the 2000s. But at some point they got very numerous, very pro-neoliberal, and very aggressive and intolerant. I had lots of discussions with them, where I was arguing pretty calmly but they got extremely nasty, sometimes beyond name-calling to retaliating or banning me. I lost friends to this current, who ostracised me because I'd argued with them or said the wrong thing online, or who became impossible to talk to because they assumed common idpol crap as the basis for every discussion. Then I started losing political spaces because they took them over, and there was no reasoning with them about how they wanted to do things. It's a vicious circle, because the nastier they get, the more defensive or argumentative I get, and the quicker the conversation goes to shit. Right now I just have to see one of their buzzwords to get my hackles up. I'm finding I have to check this reaction with people who are actually up for discussion or who aren't dyed-in-the-wool about this stuff.

As "supervillains" I see them more like an army of cloned Agent Smiths or a swarm intelligence like the Borg, rather than a few big villains. Though, there's a few of them I've met personally who stand out for the sheer level of nastiness and hypocrisy involved.

What these outgroups have in common is that they all think I'm scum, and they're all difficult or impossible to reason with. They all give off a kind of sadistic or passive-aggressive hostility directed towards me personally or a group they identify me with, and they all tend to react nastily (and never change their minds) if I critique certain dogmas of theirs or I seem to be "winning" in debate. So it's almost a mirroring reaction, I hate them because they already in advance hate me (though of course it's hard to tell at what point this becomes projections).