The question of whether it is acceptable to label these supporters as "stupid" and why some would prefer such an epithet over renouncing their allegiance invites a nuanced exploration of identity, cognitive dissonance, and political psychology.
It is important to clarify that the use of derogatory terms like "stupid" oversimplifies complex social dynamics; however, this essay seeks to understand the underlying reasons behind such steadfast support rather than endorsing name-calling.
Firstly, the intense loyalty observed among Duterte's diehard supporters can be understood through the lens of social identity theory.
Political allegiance often becomes intertwined with one’s self-concept and group identity.
For many supporters, backing Duterte transcended policy agreement—it became a marker of cultural and ideological belonging.
To turn their back on him would not only mean abandoning a political figure but also rejecting a community that validates their worldview.
In this sense, being called “stupid” may be perceived as an attack on their very identity, yet some may prefer this insult rather than face the existential uncertainty and social alienation that could follow disillusionment.
Moreover, cognitive dissonance theory provides insight into why changing one’s stance can be psychologically challenging despite contradictory evidence or negative outcomes associated with Duterte’s presidency.
When confronted with information that conflicts with their beliefs—such as reports on human rights abuses or governance shortcomings—diehard supporters might experience discomfort that they resolve by doubling down on their support or rationalizing unfavorable facts.
This mental process helps maintain internal consistency but also inhibits change in perspective.
Thus, it is not necessarily a lack of capacity for learning but rather an emotional defense mechanism preserving psychological equilibrium.
Critically, questioning whether these supporters have learned lessons from Duterte's controversial tenure must consider the nature of political learning itself.
Learning does not always manifest as outright rejection; it can involve selective reinterpretation or gradual shifts in attitude over time.
Some diehard followers may indeed revise certain opinions while still valuing aspects of Duterte’s leadership they deem beneficial or symbolic—such as his tough stance on crime or nationalist rhetoric.
Hence, labeling them simply as incapable ignores the complexities involved in political cognition and personal growth.
In conclusion, while derisive labels like “stupid” are neither academically appropriate nor productive for fostering dialogue, understanding why some diehard Duterte supporters cling to their loyalty reveals deeper psychological and sociocultural mechanisms at play.
Their preference for enduring insults over abandoning an emblematic figure reflects intertwined issues of identity preservation and cognitive dissonance rather than mere ignorance or obstinacy.
Recognizing these factors encourages more empathetic engagement aimed at constructive discourse rather than divisive condemnation.
RIP%20Walter%20Navarro.jpg)
