427
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
427 points (97.6% liked)
politics
18888 readers
3666 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You can't reason with the unreasonable, and you can't shame the shameless.
Republicans know what they want- a white-male-dominated Christofascist society where you have no rights, only privileges granted to you by your untouchable billionaire owner. They will absolutely lie, cheat, steal, and terrorize whoever and whatever they have to to make it happen.
So no, you don't reach those people. You reach out to the apathetic, the BSABs, and the "enlightened" centrists and try to make them realize Republicans will get this if they continue to sit on the sidelines.
Sure you can -- Almost all people respond to incentives. The key is to realize their incentive structure may not align with yours. If your true goal is efficacy in the change you seek to create, it's mandatory to speak to your audience in a way they will understand and be receptive to. We all have giant animal brains and tiny logic brains so you have to be really careful to not trip the wire into the limbic system where no logical thought or change can occur much less beat out tribalism and ego.
I gave up on the idea of persuading conservatives years ago. All that's left is to oppose them. Efficiency requires not wasting effort on things that don't work.
Well, then are you preparing for the eventual Civil war II, or just smelling your own farts with the rest of us liberals here?
E: https://i.imgur.com/erYn6lW.png
You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.
In a lot of cases that limbic system is the only shot you have at changing their minds. A massive number of conservatives don't believe the way they do because they've sat down and thought about their worldview. It's cultural, and has become an identity for them. In many cases it has become directly tied to Christianity, which only worsens the shitty blurring of lines. You're not going to logic that out, and most need to have their worldview shook pretty damn vigorously to even begin to see things differently.
Some of these people live in a totally different reality. You can't even begin to find common ground to jump off from without directly challenging their worldview. People turn emotional the moment that happens. Even if you get so far as to present opposing facts they will be mostly ignored/rationalized, and anything accepted will be conveniently forgotten shortly after the conversation. For as many complaints as we see from conservatives about "indoctrination" they made a fine job of doing as much with their base. It's a much bigger problem than people give credit to -- I wonder if that's due to ignorance of the issue, or if we're just afraid of looking directly at it.
I purposefully used the word 'incentives' and not logic/reason -- But still -- looking backwards through time and how separated we all used to be, this argument kind of falls apart for me. People appear to go along with things or change their minds all the time, within a life time.
How did Liberalism or progressivism begin? Why did Hammurabi ever write down laws if no one would follow them since they didnt' reason their current manner? How did all of our dad's go from the American values we grew up with to Fox News dads? Did they reason them into that and if not why doesn't your same rule apply to these?
I struggle to believe there's no theoretical solve. I agree it's likely not through logic, reason and data, but we could use logic and reason to plot a course of propaganda to move them away from Christian Fascism, just as the CF masterminds did in the opposite direction 30 years ago.
And, if there is no solve, I feel you must cede more suffering will follow for everyone. If 100 Million plus people identify with 'that side' and we decide to end persuasion, what other eventuality exists other than civil war 2? Are there examples in history of 'corralling' 33% of a population against their will politically or physically and not ending in revolt? If the CF wins, the same will be true for people that think like us, no?
Honestly, I have quit engaging in a lot of arguments with the other side too, for the same reasons you all cite, but I don't have rose colored glasses on that that makes me noble or sets our children up for a world with less suffering.
Thanks for the chat!
E: and more broadly, if a man can't be reasoned into something he did not reason into -- how did reason begin without a 2001 style obelisk or something?