Some examples of typical ingroup-outgroup-behaviour or double standards that can be observed in many and probably in most ingroup-outgroup-constellations. The bigger the ingroups and outgroups are, the more likely and the more common these behaviors become.1
Outgroup-sidedness is onesidedness, ingroup-sidedness isn’t.
When the outgroup does it, it’s called hypocrisy, when the ingroup does it, it’s called pragmatism.
The outgroup’s jokes demonstrate its evilness, the ingroup’s jokes demonstrate its humorousness.
Ingroup humor is good, outgroup humor is bad, even if the jokes are very similar.
The ingroup’s jokes are harmless fun, the outgroup’s jokes are more than jokes.
Slacktivistically demanding empathy for the ingroup & demonstrating one’s empathy by attacking the outgroup.
Vandalism against the outgroup is whitewashed or even endorsed, while verbal statements against the ingroup are penalized and criminalized.
If it’s the outgroup’s ideology it’s called indoctrination, if it’s the ingroup’s ideology it’s called education.
Every vague political term is an (implicit) ideological test: If you don’t know the correct interpretation you belong to the outgroup.
The texts that ecstasize the ingroup but seem rather unconvincing to unaffiliated people.
Why is the outgroup not persuaded by my highly esoteric ingroup terminology?
The ingroup knows that the outgroup is uneducated because it doesn’t accept or understand the ingroup’s terminology. The outgroup is opposed to the ingroup’s terminological enforcement, this means the outgroup is against education.
It’s more attractive to criticize the outgroup’s ghastly rhetoric but it’s probably more effective to criticize the ingroup’s.
The ingroup’s ingroup-outgroup behavior foments the outgroup’s ingroup-outgroup behavior, and vice versa.
If the ingroup does it it’s art, if the outgroup does it it’s hatred and incendiarism.
The outgroup vandalizes, the ingroup makes art.
Dissidents against the outgroup are heroes, dissidents against the ingroup are villains.
The ingroup’s violence is (free) speech, the outgroup’s (free) speech is violence.
Human rights protect everyone. To demonstrate this I’ve provided many examples that show how they protect the ingroup from the outgroup.
The ingroup’s holidays are sacred and profanations should be punished, the outgroup’s holidays should be criticized and ridiculed.
When the ingroup does it to the outgroup it’s called ‘consequences’, when the outgroup does it to the ingroup it’s called ‘discrimination’.
The outgroup has no right to be free from consequences, the ingroup has the right to be free from discrimination.
The ingroup is creating safe spaces, the outgroup is committing evil discrimination.
Ingroup people are complex, outgroup people are simple.
The outgroup is filled with negative emotions, the ingroup is an angelic being of crystalline perfection.
It’s legitimate if the ingroup rethinks the universal franchise, it’s evil and undemocratic if the outgroup rethinks it.
It’s an X-ocracy if demographic group X doesn’t vote in concordance with the ingroup & is big enough to influence the outcome of a vote. It’s pure democracy if demographic group Y votes in concordance with the ingroup & is big enough to influence the outcome of a vote. The outgroup’s fear that the ingroup could increase group Y to influence the outcome of a vote is utterly paranoid and antidemocratic.
The visible / legible ingroup is not the true ingroup.
The ingroup has rights, the outgroup has privileges.
The outgroup’s bad words have to be interpreted literally, the ingroup’s bad words are fun little metaphors and burlesques.
Some examples of more specific ingroup-outgroup-behavior:
Both leftists and rightists want ingroup openness and diversity but outgroup intolerance and discrimination. They just disagree about who the ingroup and who the outgroup is.
He was able to conform to the progressive dogma of universal love by proving that only the outgroup can hate.
On holiness spirals:
Ingroup signalling is often a competition where everyone tries to be more onesided than the other ingroup members. A holiness spiral develops that can look very appealing because the people who created the spiral claim to represent and implement the highest and noblest ideals. But behind that façade the ingroup’s freedoms are increased while the outgroup’s freedoms are restricted as much as possible. Lopsided speech codes proliferate in an ingroup signalling vortex, and sins and vices are redefined so that only the outgroup can commit them. The ingroup-outgroup slope becomes steeper and understanding the outgroup becomes more difficult, even honest attempts to understand the outgroup fail because one lacks the framework to view the world from the outgroup’s perspective. Explanations from the outgroup are filtered through one’s own ideology that conveniently flags everything the outgroup says as wrong and evil. These filters need to be weakened before one can view the outgroup’s arguments from the outgroup’s perspective, but this is dangerous, because understanding the outgroup can weaken one’s own ideology and impair one’s own participation in the holiness spiral. That is why guardians of public morality become active that try to prevent ingroup members and neutral people from talking to the outgroup and that try to penalize people who don’t dissociate from members of the outgroup, e.g. by not unfriending them, by not firing them or by not denouncing them.
Quoting and rephrasing my own tweets.↩