ODS - follow up given the most recent "outrage"

Ah, the timing is so perfect.  As I was saying.

Anyway,  do you remember this outrage?

Or maybe this one?

No?

OF COURSE YOU DON"T!

And why is that?  I am going to tell you.  Confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias is when you search for things that confirm narratives you already believe.  In America, conservatives love the narratives that liberals don't respect our soldiers, don't love America and liberals are not patriotic.  So, at every opportunity, if they see something they can *use* to support this narrative, they jump on it.   They see certain things as compelling evidence that no other sane person would interpret that way.

On the other hand, liberals don't generally have these narratives regarding conservatives (though we have a few others of our own).  So, when Bush I and II committed these completely trivial non-events, no one noticed.  I didn't, you didn't, no one did. Because they didn't "confirm" anyone's desire to believe that Bush (I or II) hates our troops.  But we all know what it means when Obama commits similar "outrages".

Let me show you how it works from the other side.  Here is a narrative the left likes to tell about the right: Conservatives are basically racist.  You see, the "outrage" over Obama not properly saluting his subordinates is all about it: A black man (the uppity n-word) has reversed the proper order of things.  And white people don't like it.  And the more the right bitches, the more the "right wing is racist" narrative is confirmed (to those that believe it).

Now, do I think it's really racism?  Maybe it feeds some of it, but the likely driver is just what I am suggesting:  People on the right getting their already held beliefs "confirmed" by what, to anyone else, is basically nothing. 

And for the record,  Petty and supports the narrative that Obama doesn't care about our troops.

Obama Derangement Syndrome is trending up these days.

It must be getting close to an election, because my Facebook news-feed is hit multiple times a day with rabid anti-Obama posts.  I can generally categorize them into one of four types:

1)  Lies, quotes taken out of context, hyperbole and unsubstantiated innuendo
    
     Comment:  It's absolutely astounding to me the percentage of this crap that can be debunked with less than one minute of Google searching.  And, you would think, that decent people would want to check their facts before attacking someone on a public forum.  Nope.

2)  Petty attacks

     Comment: Yes, petty.   Typically, Fox or some other usual suspect, "discovers" a heretofore unknown rule of presidential etiquette that Obama has egregiously violated.  Now, it usually turns out that previous presidents (including Republican ones) have done the same or similar things, but that was before Fox discovered the rule.  Regardless though, it's amazing how many of the complaints about something Obama did (or didn't do) are just petty.  And I am being nice because a better word for most of them would be "stupid".

3)  Juvenile insults or applauding someone showing Obama disrespect.

Comment:  I get it, you hate him.  I got that the first 1000 times you implied it. 

4)  Something (everything) bad is Obama's fault or something is bad because Obama supports it.

Comment: I think John Stewart nailed it when he said  that there is only one way to get the GOP to come around to believing the climate change science - Barack Obama must publicly deny global warming.

You would think there would be a category for lucid, well thought out and objective criticism of his leadership and/or policies.  There should be, because coming up with such critiques would not be hard to do.  But I don't see those get posted.  I guess that must just be too boring.  And it takes effort and thoughtfulness too.

For those of you who have not heard the term "Obama Derangement Syndrome", you must be new.  
And to be fair, a conservative pundit really invented this concept. He called it Bush Derangement Syndrome.   It was is his name for the inability of left wingers to come up with anything beyond irrational and knee jerk hatred of all things GW Bush.  For example,

"Bush was is on 9/11 as a conspiracy. "
"Bush lied, people died"
"Bush doesn't care about black people"

OK, so here is the deal:  I don't think Bush participated in a plot to murder 3000 people in order to consolidate his power.  I don't think Bush believed that he was lying about WMD in Iraq (I don't, honest).  I don't think he under-responded to Katrina because he doesn't care about black people. That is all garbage.

And for the record, I think he is likely an OK guy (who like all of us has flaws).   He loves his family and wants the best for America.

Guess what?  I think Obama is likely an OK guy (with flaws) who loves his family and wants the best for America.     Say WHAT!!!!???

Yes, you heard me, I am actually so defective that I don't think that Obama is a secret Muslim from Kenya who hates America and also is just like Hitler, Stalin and Osama bin Laden combined.   And that is my point.  There are people who want you to believe certain narratives.  The purpose of the narratives are of course to make you hate him.  Because disagreeing with him isn't what we do anymore, we must demonize, dehumanize and hate. Here is a partial listing of these narratives:

• Obama does not love America
• Obama doesn't care about our soldiers
• Obama is a secret Muslim
• Obama hates white people
• Obama hates Christians
• Obama is in league with terrorists
• Obama is stupid and incompetent
• Obama is weak
• Obama is a dictator
• Obama wants to destroy our way of life
• Obama is a self-centered jerk
• Obama rapes puppies and drinks white baby blood (ok, I made that one up)

So, next time someone posts an anti-Obama link,  don't get mad. Play a game. Ask yourself two questions:

1. Which of the four categories is this?
2. What anti-Obama narrative does it support?

Beats getting mad.