Fear Mongering
I ended up having a good conversation with ponsdorf recently about fear mongering which I'd like to keep here so that I can refer to later.
There are at least three kinds of fear mongering. The first is the kind that's just objectively incorrect. For example it is simply not true to say that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist. It's just plain wrong; the equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. The only reason why it even flies in the first place is that some people don't actually engage their critical thinking very often.
There's also empty fear mongering, which in my experience is the most common. If someone says that Barack Obama pals around with terrorists this is technically true, inasmuch as a tenured professor is a "terrorist" or that working in the same office building is "palling around". What are we actually afraid of? The accusation is deliberately empty, relying on the listener to fill in the details with whatever they can imagine. It's like the first half of most decent horror movie - no actual monster, but lots of dramatic lighting and scary music.
But sometimes there's specific fear mongering, that rare case when someone actually spells out specifically what they're afraid of. For example: "We have to fight 'em over there so that we don't have to fight 'em over here." It might seem implausible that Sunni Iraqis, Pashtun Afghans, and Saudi Wahabbis were at all connected, or that someone is less likely to attack us at home if we attack them in their homes, but at least there's some actual substance to discuss. At least we can actually consider the seriousness of the threat or the best course for avoiding it.
Protip: if you're a sincere fear mongerer, try to weave a few specific examples into your points. On the other hand if you're just trying to stir the pot make sure that your mongerings are as vague, broad, and ambiguous as possible is a great way to keep what you're saying beyond rational criticism.
There are at least three kinds of fear mongering. The first is the kind that's just objectively incorrect. For example it is simply not true to say that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist. It's just plain wrong; the equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. The only reason why it even flies in the first place is that some people don't actually engage their critical thinking very often.
There's also empty fear mongering, which in my experience is the most common. If someone says that Barack Obama pals around with terrorists this is technically true, inasmuch as a tenured professor is a "terrorist" or that working in the same office building is "palling around". What are we actually afraid of? The accusation is deliberately empty, relying on the listener to fill in the details with whatever they can imagine. It's like the first half of most decent horror movie - no actual monster, but lots of dramatic lighting and scary music.
But sometimes there's specific fear mongering, that rare case when someone actually spells out specifically what they're afraid of. For example: "We have to fight 'em over there so that we don't have to fight 'em over here." It might seem implausible that Sunni Iraqis, Pashtun Afghans, and Saudi Wahabbis were at all connected, or that someone is less likely to attack us at home if we attack them in their homes, but at least there's some actual substance to discuss. At least we can actually consider the seriousness of the threat or the best course for avoiding it.
Protip: if you're a sincere fear mongerer, try to weave a few specific examples into your points. On the other hand if you're just trying to stir the pot make sure that your mongerings are as vague, broad, and ambiguous as possible is a great way to keep what you're saying beyond rational criticism.