How To: argue with Trumpers

Politics & Elections
41

Like most here, I do my utmost to avoid arguing with Trumpers. I rarely have to interact with them, thankfully. But I’ve occasionally been a captive audience of one who just will not be deterred.

The only tactic that has brought me a measure of respite is to turn the discussion back on them to justify their positions. I don’t let them “whatabout” or dodge their “reasoning,” such as it is.

Conversations have gone like this (I never start them):

Trumper: “The libruls stole the election from Trump!”

Me: “Really? How do you imagine that happened?”

Trumper: “There were millions of illegal immigrant votes counted!”

Me: “Huh. How do you suppose they accomplished that? I thought there were Republicans involved in the vote counts across the country. How did those good Republicans not obtain evidence of that?”

Trumper: “Well, the libruls were slipping votes in the back door under cover of night, so the Republicans didn’t know.”

Me: “Gosh, that doesn’t sound likely to me. Why do you suppose we have to register to vote and have our signatures matched and be ticked off of a list when we vote? What’s the purpose of that if votes can just be slipped in the back door late at night? And why would the elections officials count them if the votes couldn’t be verified as legitimate? And why wouldn’t the Republicans show the evidence of this to the courts if the elections officials ignored the voter match requirements? Say, since we’re on the subject of courts, why do you suppose all those judges across the country dismissed all the cases against Trump, even Trump judges?”

Trumper: “You’re just brainwashed by librul media.”

Me: “Am I? Can you show me a single article from even your own news sources that says Trump won more than 1 minor point in an election fraud case? I’ll be happy to read it and factor it into my opinion. Or are you saying no news source can ever be trusted, ever?”

And so on.

I don’t expect to persuade any. But at least it gets them to think twice about trying to engage me again.

42

Oh I forgot another one:

On the election fraud thing specifically, I hear so often people claim they saw something first hand, or know someone that saw it.
When this has happened to me in person, I have pointed out that the Republican lieutenant governor of Texas, Dan Patrick, offered a $1 million reward for proof of election fraud. Why didn’t they collect that prize, and help keep Trump in the white house to boot? Why did no-one collect it?

Both times where I’ve brought this up, the conversation basically abruptly ended there; no answer was forthcoming.

(Of course I think that they probably know as well as I do that DP would not actually pay up even if there were such proof. But admitting that one of their own is a weasel is not an option, so, like I say, it’s crickets),

43

Pretty similar to how you survive a knife fight.

44

I’ve seen various outlets state that getting involve in ‘big picture’ arguments with Trumpers is unlikely to be effective, and more likely to cause frustration, lose friends and waste time.

Instead the alternative is to go small talk, absolutely nothing political and largely very mundane, just to keep dialogue going and to humanise conversation - the first thing that power ideologues do is to try find someone to blame, and to somehow dehumanise others by portraying them as some sort of threat.

Mundane things such as personal preferences of how food is prepared, diet tips, and general chit chat - trying to get across the idea of commonality over important things - mundane matters have more effect on day to day lives than big politics.

Its during these little conversations that you can establish common information and its how you can extend that to cause and effect - e.g Household tips - why some things seem to work and other tips don’t - even when recommended.

You might never get beyond this, after all the Trumpers have been groomed for years, and they volunteered for it - that’s just how it is.

45

We are right, they are wrong. No doubt about it. But as soon as we position an issue as a right/wrong binary choice, people tend to dig in and defend their beliefs.

As soon as they are accused of being in the wrong, their position becomes an emotional one, not a rational one. (This is true for us, as well, that’s why we get so upset with certain people.)

What can we do? As much as it might go against what we hold dear, we need to start presenting issues as complex, not simple. And then allow them the freedom to choose.

Yes, it sucks, because we are right, but when people have the freedom to choose in a complex situation, they often start asking better questions and sometimes start challenging their own points of view. Might be better than digging ever deeper trenches between us and them.

46

Much the same as dealing with Brexiteers. IMHO. I give them the facts and they just get nasty. People don’t change their opinions, so all you get is fireworks. I agree with the others who say “don’t bother.”

But it says a lot about political debate and polarization that the USA and UK have intensely divisive politics at the moment…

47

From the evidence we see in online postings and media interviews, it seems that some very large proportion of the daily mental lives of Trump fans is devoted to fantasizing about ‘librul tears.’ Distress that’s supposedly felt by liberals and progressives is the entire point of debate for some on the right.

In particular, writings aimed at Trump fans (or “conservatives”) seems to spend a lot of space and energy on the topic of annoying and upsetting people on the left (and how delightful that is).

By simply remaining calm and rational throughout your discussions, as shown in the example you gave, you’ve no doubt won the argument—so far as it can be said to be won or lost. You didn’t cry or otherwise display negative emotion, so you thwarted the Trumper’s entire reason for engaging!

48

There simply is no way to argue with a Chumper. I have no more to do with them than I would a neo-Nazi or child molester. Not worth the effort.

49

This is, in fact, the sum total of right wing ideology now. There is no coherent philosophy or objective. If liberals are for it, they are against it.

50

Thanks, @Sherrerd. I’ve learned the hard way that presenting actual facts and evidence get nowhere. So on the exceedingly rare occasions when I am forced to carry on a discussion and am unable to divert it, I simply stay laser-focused on making them either a) explain why they think what they think; or b) give up and walk away.

If they choose the former, then we have a basis for dialogue where I can continue to question how they arrived at their conclusions.

If they choose the latter (most often the case), then maybe I have at least planted a seed.

Again, these are very rare conversations. I do my utmost to avoid them if at all possible.

51

‘It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.’ - Bill Murray

52

Of course rhetoric alone won’t work. But it’s not just rhetoric that’s being ignored, it’s factual evidence. And factual evidence can change strongly held views, as long as one is willing to examine the evidence fairly. What’s happened is that those who are willing to see the facts for what they are already abandoned Trump, so we’re just left with people who ignore reality.

53

Right. Octopus mentioned rhetoric won’t convince anyone. Using just rhetoric would be like arguing with a creationist by citing other philosophers. But as you mention, we can also cite geologists, astrophysicists, etc. I could understand rejecting an argument if it’s just rhetoric / cites from a philosopher. But there’s no way to reach someone who ignores hard evidence, and no use even trying.

54

None of this works because none of them are actually truth-seeking. Their only truth is supremacy of their narrative and their people.

You can try pointing out “Actually, Trump was weaker on immigration than Obama.” Here are the potential outcomes:

  1. Nuh uh! Fake news!
  2. So you ADMIT that the media was harder on Trump for doing less-bad stuff than Obama. Fake news!
  3. You’re criticizing Trump, which means you probably don’t really care about immigration, so FAKE NEWS

People generally don’t leave cults due to reasoned persuasion. Mostly they leave in the back of a van with a gunnysack over the head. I don’t own a van or a gunnysack, so my plan is just to avoid these people (as much as I reasonably can) for the rest of my life, or until I can forklift-move my life to a slightly less stupid country like Canada.

55

Compare and contrast with:

You Can Always Tell A Harvard Man, But You Can’t Tell Him Much

People who are clever can more quickly think of counter-arguments. But almost anyone will come up with one eventually.

56

It’s an excellent strategy (and one I haven’t seen recommended enough, in enough places). .

I’m reminded of the works of linguist Suzette Haden Elgin, whose advice always included using questions like ‘when did you start thinking [whatever was in contention]?’ This acts to defuse some bad verbal strategies–in fact, much as you describe it in your posts in this thread.

57

I’m thinking this should be a tag-line for attracting new immigrants;

“Move to Canada; Slightly less stupid than other places we could mention.”

58

Have you met a Trumper? Tell them that Obama deported more illegal immigrants than Trump did and they’ll say you’re lying. Or, if they’re in a friendly mood, they’ll say you’re being duped by the liberal media.

They’ll explain to you that Obama is a Muslim who was born in the country of Africa and he had open borders and encouraged terrorists to enter America. That’s why El Qaeda, a Mexican Muslim terrorist gang, was able to blow up the World Trade Center while he was President.

Fortunately President Donald Trump saved America by building the Wall that protected America from Mexican Muslims entering the country. Until Fake President Biden stole the election that Trump won and re-opened the border to terrorists.

59

So far, there’s only one strategy I’ve found that had any effect at all. But maybe I can adapt it to more situations.

The first principle is that conservatives are, almost definitionally, fear-driven. Fear of others, fear of change, fear of economic disruption, fear of the New World Order, whatever. It’s all fear in the end and while you are never going to fix that, you might be able to settle them down a tiny amount by indirectly arguing that some of their fears are ungrounded.

In particular, there’s fear of the Biden administration (just as there was fear of Obama). And the argument I used is that Biden is just Obama part 3–which they happily agree with–and so it’s not a big deal because Obama also wasn’t a big deal. It’s been long enough that they don’t remember their bugbears, such as their fear of dijon mustard or tan suits. But Obama didn’t start any big wars, or crash the economy, or seize all the guns, or lock up the white race, or anything like that. And they happily agree with that also, stating that Obama was just a do-nothing president. You don’t have to explicitly say anything further, but it seems to genuinely cause some reevaluation of their fear of Biden.

The only problem is that they (with 100% frequency in my experience) go but what about Kamala? With the obvious assumption that Biden will die or step down or whatever. I leave the argument at that point, but the fact that they had to move their goalposts seems to indicate that it had some effect. It’s an easy to grasp argument and in later followups I find that they can remember it.

60

True, because they don’t join them for rational reasons, but for emotional reasons. It’s natural for people attracted to a website called The Straight Dope to imagine that people make decisions based on a practical assessment of the facts. You all are misinformed in that respect. People rarely do that, as a rule.

From everything I have heard and read, the main reason cultists rejoin the larger world we think of as “reality based” is that the world they chose to inhabit was not meeting their emotional needs any more, for whatever reason. Either that or they got arrested and ended up in jail. Which can be sobering for some.