Framing drove membership in an ascribed conspiratorial enemy, not behaviour or intent.

Evidence

As (Hintjens 1999, 264) put it: ‘All Tutsi were regarded as objective allies of the RPF, on the grounds that they stood to gain if the Bahima conspiracy succeeded. Thus, so long as all Bahutu acknowledged the existence of the Bahima conspiracy, the Batutsi were conveniently converted into enemies of the Rwandan state and its ethnic majority’. — Erin K. Jenne and Promise Frank Ejiofor, Ethnopopulism and genocidal…, 65

Categorization

  • XREF: The word ‘objectively’ doing eliminationsit work connects to the reader’s question on threat-hardened beliefs resisting rational correction — objectivity frames make claims unfalsifiable by design. — connects to: Conspiracy theories usually aim to name an enemy, not to build a coherent story. — Anna Merlan, Republic of Lies, 64; Suspicion of Muslims is based on association rather than evidence; Groups invoke external enemies to justify the suppression of internal disunity — Manuel Borutta and Jan C. Jansen, Vertriebene and Pieds-Noirs in Postwar…, 649 (+3 more)
  • QUESTION: Worth chasing: does the ‘objective ally’ ascription logic make the belief immune to disconfirmation — the specific mechanism by which moral/rational correction backfires?

Broader Connections