The (constructive, effective) disagreement thread

Politics & Elections
1

I believe that writing off Trump’s followers is dangerous; did you see this?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/08/us/arkansas-police-chief-violence-parler-invs/index.html

Ignoring them is not going to work and he could run in 2024…or one of his kids could.

This shit has gone on too long. We’ve lost family members, friends, colleagues, and I propose a thread where we discuss what we’re seeing and reading and hearing from (Trump’s) people in our social circle. It’s time we figure out how to get through to them.

Here’s something that was posted recently on FB. The poster married my niece; I’m not close to either of them, so I don’t have a handle on how comments might be received. I’m going to take you to point 5.

My first reaction: WTF? Just recently Lesley Stahl busted him on not having a health care plan, and we sure haven’t seen a finished wall.

My second reaction: let’s ask an outside observer—neither red nor blue.

My third reaction: consult history. Trump and Hitler both manipulated people: how and when did Hitler’s supporters come around? Did they know all along and just feign ignorance? Were they under duress, had to play along? Did it take a generation before they saw the FULL picture and realized?

My fourth reaction: how much is personal? I’m college educated, “intellectual” by their standards…some of the people I’d like to persuade are not. To be fair some say intellectuals talk down to them. Whereas I listen to Fauci, they listen to Trump. If I said, “Here’s a source vetted by https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/” they’d probably say, “Here’s something from Breitbart.”

My fifth reaction: due to social media, I’m one voice in a zllion. What are the odds of getting through? My sister has resorted to telling my nephew “Shut up!” on Facebook when he starts talking about Trump.

I posted an edited version elsewhere but I’ve since found the full speech…

What logic or examples or approaches have you tried that seemed to get through to these people?

2

Osterizer® to the brain.

3

I’m married to one. He wasn’t like this 32 years ago. He’s smart, funny, thoughtful and kind. He buys milkbones to give to the next door dogs and puts out food for the stray cats.

We can still have thoughtful discussions about anything but Trump and COVID. He’s still the same man I married all those years ago EXCEPT for his cult like belief in Trump.

I still love the guy and would really like him to stop drinking the kool-aid, so I will be paying close attention to this thread.

4

You can’t logically talk people out of positions they didn’t arrive at through logic. You can try to correct basic factual mistakes, but if they can’t tell the difference between a real news source and Breitbart, you can’t even do that.

5

I have no idea.

I really don’t. anyone should see trump for what he is but even after everything he has done wrong he still got 71+ million votes.

at this point I’m not sure we can reach his voters. the real goal needs to be how do we protect democracy, progress, a better future and human decency from these people. how can we limit the damage they will do.

6

The only thing I can think of that would be effective is passing stronger laws on creating and reporting as true things that are demonstrably false. Make up a story that Wisconsin had more votes cast than actual voters? Whoever did so would be breaking this new law. Make up a false story that election workers are burning legitimate ballots? Against the law. Declare Codid-19 over even though it obviously isn’t? Illegal.

Obviously this won’t happen, but it would be effective if it did.

7

I remember watching footage of the trials at Nuremberg. No remorse until the very end. No acceptance of responsibility. No contrition. None. Zero.

“I was following orders” was about the most any of them would say.

History isn’t kind to demagogues. Neither is history kind to their followers.

What amazes me is that there’s never any shortage of receptive audiences for these monsters. And the audiences always have a very similar demographic: a bit lost, uneducated, not particularly intelligent, and not prone to critical thinking or intellectual curiosity.

What can be done to bring them around to reality ? If history is any guide … probably absolutely nothing.

But if deprived of their next demagogue … it may well be possible to render them dramatically less destructive.

8

Maybe that’s a key…an appeal to emotion instead of logic? Problem is, they seem to respond to negative emotions like fear.

We have a friend who’s a very good programmer…and he reads Breitbart. How to reconcile?

Yeah some of this has to be deliberate. One thing I don’t get these days is that there ought to be an enormous slate of lawsuits. Maybe there is and I’m not aware of it? If you have the money to outlast those who sue you, can you do as you please? Maybe that’s an area to address.

Also the SBC video talks about holding Zuckerberg et al responsible.

I can think of some who fit that description. Still, nearly 50% voted for him. I get that maybe some vote for one thing—economy, pro-life, keep out the evil invaders—but 50% pulls in some more intelligent folks too.

9

I have no intention of getting through to them, most of them have been brainwashed past the point of reason. The best thing to do is remember who got us to this point and make sure they don’t have the power to do so again.

I like AOC’s plan of archiving all their tweets, posts, and general history so that they can be used in cancelling them. We are stuck with these people, but we can make sure they have as little of a public forum and voice as possible.

10

You’re right, there is no getting through to those who are brainwashed. Which is why I think the only solution is to make brainwashing, in the form of deliberately creating lies for political benefit, illegal and to criminally charge those who do so. I don’t mean your crazy uncle who shares things on Facebook. I mean people like Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, etc.

11

I agree with the premise of the OP. My bubble is so intact that I almost never encounter Trump voters.

I do have two friends, a married couple, living in Florida so I don’t see them in person, who voted for Trump in 2016. They are honestly good, extremely intelligent people - just a bit eccentric, surprisingly prone to believing woo given their hard-science backgrounds, and relatively uninterested/unsophisticated in their view of politics and the workings of government.

It was hard, but I made a conscious decision to overlook their 2016 choice and not put them in the “deplorables” basket (I so fucking hate that term; Hilary really screwed up with that comment).

Fast forward to 2020 - I’m in contact with the wife about some interesting professional opportunities (she and some female friends want to start a nonprofit to promote women in STEM, with some twists based on their personal experiences; it’s very cool).

I have asked her a couple of times in emails if she was planning to vote for Trump this time.

She just ignores the question. I don’t know what that means, and I don’t know if I can or should press the issue. I do NOT want to lose our friendship, for half a billion reasons. But I really would like to know what she’s thinking.

12

I agree with this. It should be illegal to intentionally disseminate false information, even though people will inevitably cry “free speech!!!” at it. The fact is speech has to have limits in order for any society to function properly.

13

I’m sorry, but that is a horrible solution. Who decides what’s true? The people in power. All it takes is a regime change to immediately be the one who is censored. Attempts to limit speech are almost always used against marginalized people.

And no, I don’t know what to do instead. Nothing seems to work.

14

In principle yes. Very hard to manage in practice I would think. Look at celebs taking on the Nat’l Enquirer etc.

Is there something deeper here? I went to college, like many of you. I learned about logical fallacies (ad hominem, ad baculum, etc.) and the scientific method. I learned the importance of definitions from philosophy classes and sampling error and other concerns. College makes me different from those who didn’t go (not better—just different. Neither of my parents graduated high school but they did ok, so I’m not judgey.) [quote=“Spice_Weasel, post:13, topic:925194”]
Who decides what’s true?
[/quote]

The victors write the history books, or so they say. I find that troubling. If Trump (and Barr) get this twisted…

15

One thing that has been helpful in European nations coping with disinformation campaigns is to educate their populaces how to discern between real and fake information.

In Finland, for example:

I recall reading that France and Germany have adopted their methods. While still a problem, they are making progress. We should do the same.

16

Definitely. That’s very cool.

17

One thing that is almost never tried is to attempt actual communication, which is a two-way process that involves active listening on both sides. This is, of course, a one on one process, although perhaps something could be dramatized for media so that anyone interested could see how it works. And it depends on finding someone willing to participate honestly on each side – and by honestly, I mean listening for understanding not for punch points, following up to make sure one understands, and being able to talk dispassionately about the issues.

This is also a process that only works for people who are not at complete opposite ends of the spectrum of human values and beliefs. Participants have to be able to find some common ground.

I can hear the roars of disbelief and disapproval from here. But my point is this: If you go into any discussion with the idea that “I’m right and I have to find a way to persuade them that they are wrong” then you are never going to have communication, only argument and rancor. You will never persuade someone if you yourself are not open to persuasion.

Also note that “open to persuasion” does not mean you are obliged to actually be persuaded, if the facts and arguments are not convincing to you. But you have to be open to it.

18

Hubs and I talk and discuss each other’s opinions on matters important and trivial. Our rare arguments usually mean one of us will bring up something that’s bothering them, the other one will discuss and if things start getting loud, we both stop and think for a while (hours usually, sometimes days if its really big), then go back to the table and start over with talking points and cites and all that stuff.

We could have a civil discussion about something Trump did as long as I wasn’t dissing the man. Then COVID came along and hubs went insane.

I am not open to persuasion about masks in public. He refuses to even consider wearing a mask unless he’s with me because that is a condition of us going out together. That is all the compromise possible in this household so far.

I still love him even while wanting to shake him so hard he wakes up.

19

It’s fascinating to see the calls for tyranny and genocide in such a thread.

20

Tyranny! Genocide!
(I didn’t want that post to be your usual . . . um, thingy.)