Demonizing a rival’s beliefs is a direct expression of hostility, not just propaganda.

Evidence

The attitude adopted by a society in such a case is largely determined by the degree of hostility it feels, rather than by any impartial assessment of the importance of the quarrel. It is not suggested that hostile societies to-day feel more antagonism than hostile societies felt during the Crusades. In fact, the attribution of so many crimes to Islam, those which most disgusted Christendom, was not Just a means (even sincerely and confidently brought forward) to discredit a rival religion. It was also and more simply an expression of the hostility that Christendom felt for the civilisation at its borders. It may be that it is a human tendency for men to dislike other people’s thinking differently from themselves. This would explain why a man often attributes to those who think differently from him a version of their opinions that they themselves cannot recognise, but which from his point of view is agreeably repulsive. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1493 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

In the rhetoric of conflict, opinion shapers ascribe to their foes irrationalities, barbarities, and culpabilities that color public beliefs (Ivie, 1980). In these different instances, those who have been persuaded are not lying to themselves. The misleaders and the misled are different persons. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 708 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

But it is not clear just where the line can be drawn in advance. “Hostility,” for example, might seem to be an emotional or temperamental quality best kept out of game theory; but if a player’s hostility in the game is a significant constraint on his ability to perceive the other player’s meaning, it becomes part of the “communication structure.” An experiment by Deutsch is pertinent. He let pairs of players play nonzero-sum games (in matrix form) tacitly for a sequence of two plays, the game providing both a “cooperative” and an “uncooperative” choice. Those who played uncooperatively against a cooperative partner had an opportunity, on the second play, to respond to the implicit offer of cooperation. But, “when their expectation of the other person’s choice was not confirmed, they tended to interpret his choice as being a function of indifference or a basic lack of understanding as to how the game ‘should’ be played… . In this group, knowledge of the other person’s choice, because of the meaning attributed to it, tended to reinforce the previous negative sentiments regarding the intentions of the other person.” — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 795 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Hostility toward rivals is expressed by attributing unrecognisable, repulsive opinions to them — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1493; Conflict rhetoric attributes barbarities to foes so that the persuaded are not self-deceived — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 708; Hostility becomes part of the communication structure when it distorts perception. — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 795 (+1 more)

Related

• Hostility toward rivals is expressed by attributing unrecognisable, repulsive opinions to them (similarity 0.87)
• A society’s hostility toward rivals outweighs impartial assessment of the quarrel’s importance (similarity 0.85)
• Conflict rhetoric attributes barbarities to foes so that the persuaded are not self-deceived (similarity 0.82)
• Hostile writers assumed what harms an enemy’s cause is automatically true. (similarity 0.82)
• Modern communal hostilities distort opponents’ views as much as medieval ones did. (similarity 0.81)
• Hostile epitomes can describe real events while distorting them beyond recognition (similarity 0.80)
• Modern intellectual disputes also reject shared facts and caricature adversaries (similarity 0.79)
• Said contests the claim that difference must imply hostility (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Hostility toward rivals is expressed by attributing unrecognisable, repulsive opinions to them #corroborates (0.93) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1493
• Conflict rhetoric attributes barbarities to foes so that the persuaded are not self-deceived #corroborates (0.88) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 708
• Hostility becomes part of the communication structure when it distorts perception. #expands (0.82) — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 795
• Hostility toward a group comes first and negative stereotypes follow to justify it #expands (0.78)