I learned this form my mother in law last night. We were at the state fair and I jokingly asked if she had signed up yet (since she’s is 56, and therefore"old"). Ha ha, thought I. She replies, “The AARP is a liberal, socialistic organization, and I’ll no part in it.” “Look at the pigs!”, says I.
This kind of thing makes me horribly uncomfortable. Mostly, I think due to the “confrontational” flavor it has for me. I don’t believe that AARP is as she described, but she reads up on all the latest news from the Washington Times and NewsMax, she watches FoxNews and Hannity & Colmes “religiously”. I don’t have the “facts” handy like she does. Her views strike me as, well, extreme. And I don’t like emtremism. She is a “news” junkie and is very active with several groups. She believes that her point of view is fact, rather than just her view on things. I’m not nearly that confident in my beliefs.
I’m probably too milquetoasty, wishy-washy and indecisive about things. I’m not sure.
I don’t react well in debate-like situations, not that I was going to debate her as I was umarmed, so to speak. I always think of the perfect comeback the next day, you know?
Anyway, I have a question about all this crap I just spewed out. How do you respond to someone whoe expresses views you find to be silly? Aside from trying to be better informed etc.
Yes, excellent riposte. That neatly countered each and every possible argument that could be raised by an opponent. Well done, and excellent advice to the OP to boot.
FWIW, my grandfather (who threatens to disown me every time I mention any of my “pinko Commie liberal ideas,” like education reform or organic gardening) joined the AARP the second he was able to. He called it “his only entitlement.” Meanwhile, he collects Social Security religiously and bitches when the mail is 10 minutes late on his “paycheck” days.
But your question was about how to respond to statements like your mother’s. Personally, I think “look at the pigs!” is a pretty good way to go. Whenever someone says something to me that is so “out there” that I cannot possibly come up with a response, I just don’t. No good can come from it. I just change the subject, or if that doesn’t work, I find a ladies’ room, duck inside, and then make up something in there to complain about.
Oh, and Indygrrl is absolutely right: Fox News is a joke.
I don’t do political debate with my family. It seems to cause more trouble than anything else. My parents like George W., I think he’s Satan. It’s not worth wasting my breath to argue about it with them. My dad gets very upset if I say anything about it, and my mom doesn’t use facts as a basis for her opinions. It’s tiresome and I don’t ever feel that anything is better as a result of the argument.
This doesn’t mean I’m giving up my viewpoint. It just means I don’t want to fight with my family.
Religion, politics, and with some people sports, are subjects that I will not debate with anyone with whom I have any sort of attachment. That doesn’t mean I won’t discuss those subjects, just that I won’t debate them. In other words if we’re talking politics and someone starts going on about how GWB is the antichrist, I might ask them some questions on the subject, but I will not, under any circumstances try to argue their beliefs. If they ask my opinion on the matter I will inform them of my policy, if they insist I will reiterate my position, and if they insist further I might just decide to open up with both barrels. However, I will do so with the full knowledge that there’s no way in hell the relationship will ever be the same. Seeing as your MIL is family I think you did the right thing. Her views don’t hurt you or affect you in any way, so live and let live.
The AARP is strongly in favor of transfer payments from the working taxpayer to the non-working retiree, regardless of the relative financial health of the two. For instance, it is against means-testing any federal benefit.
Does this make it socialist? Not really, because socialism advocates payments to those that need them.
What it is is pure interest group politics, advocating for their members without consideration for the rest of society. This is reason enough to be sceptical of their entire program.
I wouldn’t break out the “pinko” namecalling, though.
Thanks, Indygrrl for the elaboration. I have been trying to take that tac with my MIL, I just didn’t realize a stupid joke about AARP was going to end up a political debate. In fact, that is the exact tactic that my FIL uses, as he is quite moderate (liberal in MIL’s view, of course). I hope to learn it well.
As a serious response, I would’ve asked her to explain how they are liberal and socialist. And then queried more about her responses, investigating her stance and her sources. If it because apparent her view was silly, I would’ve suggested alternate trains of thought. But as it’s your mother, and as the topic isn’t really all that important, I would’ve been rather non-confrontational in the discussion. And some intermixed “look at the pigs” would go a long way.
Honestly, I don’t know a thing about the AARP. Perhaps they are as she describes, or at least a little left-leaning. I had assumed they were more right-wing, as I assume their constituency is.
I’m not sure your mother’s views are completely silly. I don’t think the AARP is liberal or socialist according to the true definitions of those words; your mother likely does not actually know what those words mean. I think she might have been trying to express that it’s a GREEDY organization. The AARP’s purpose, when you get right down to it, is to bully the government into giving free tax money to its members just because they happen to be old. There is good reason to object to that, and your mother has some justification in not wanting to be associated with such an organization. Mr. Moto’s assessment of the organization is spot on.
Your mother may not have the political savvy or the detailed vocabulary to distinguish what is genuinely “liberal” or “socialist” from sheer lobbyist trough-feeding, but that doesn’t make her stupid or her opinions invalid, and it does not prove her wrong and you right.
If you encounter someone with views you disagree with, you may want to engage them in intelligent conversation rather than just assuming they’re “silly.” You’re the one who cut off the conversation; you sound as unreasonable and extreme as she does, at least from what’s given us in the OP. I’m not saying you are, but the information in the OP doesn’t tell me anything different.
The right response was NOT to come up with a comeback. It was to say, “Why do you think that?”
You guys forgot to mention that the Washington Times and NewsMax are jokes also.
That said, AARP is a special interest group, that tries to look out for the interests of its members, just like the NRA, NEA or the National Association of Basketweavers do.
I suppose Social Security and Medicare are liberal socialiist ideas. I would welcome the Bush and the other Republicans to campaign against such socialism.
Some positions don’t need evidence and argument. Like the physicist who, after being attacked by the post modernist who claimed that he couldn’t show that post modernism was flawed, replied, “Yes I can.”
As I mentioned, I’m not a skilled debater. That’s why this is in IMHO, not GD. And I was trying to make light of the situation, not enter into a discussion of whether or not her views were really silly. My actual response was something like “Why would you think that?” Her answer was something like Mr Moto’s.
My question was really about how one deals with people who say things in all seriousness that are kinda out there. So in the future I will try to actually ask the questions I want answered and not offer extraneous details.
As proof that I have not learned my lesson I offer the following anecdote.
As another example of my MIL’s habit of throwing out “extremist” non sequitiors, a few years ago coming back from dinner, the sugject of my FIL’s poosible early retirement came up and the subsequent filing for Social Security. I made some comment about how I didn’t count on SS being around when I retired because there wouldn’t be enough people working to support it. She answers that there would have been plenty of workers around if all these abortions hadn’t been performed these last 20+ years. I didn’t want to talk about abortion and I’m not sure that would have been the case, and so the topic kind of limped to a new topic…
I think one thing you can learn from this is that your MIL has some boundary issues. In other words, she jumps into personal territory when you are just making conversation.
I can’t help it, I tend to avoid people with those type of issues. IRL, people who cross into personal territory without an invitation really get on my nerves. So my response is usually along the “Look at the pigs” line. I’m generally pretty effective at getting rid of these people, but that may not be your goal.
I am “blessed” with strong opinions. Maybe you are blessed with an open mind. You could probably be pretty effective at getting people like this to like you by responding “I never thought of it that way” and leave the door open for them to elaborate, if you can stand it.
My, look at those pigs. They sure have cute curly tails, huh?..
I don’t enjoy political discussions with my family. Particularly my in-laws. They’re lovely people, but I don’t want to mix it up with them over politics or current events. On a number of occasions, my sister-in-law has said something fairly ridiculous, and I’ve thought something along the lines of “Well, I could verbally disagree, thus prompting a 20-minute discussion at the end of which she still wouldn’t have changed her mind, or I could just make an excuse and go into the kitchen.” I almost always wind up in the kitchen.
And views of mainstream party ideals, be it on the right or left, being considered extreme by you or others strike me as, well, extreme.
As pointed out the AARP does support ideas such as transfer payments and IIRC supported both Clinton and Gore and mainly Liberal Democratic polititons. So she does have a point.
